Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles (JSOT Supplement Series)

JOURNAL FOETHE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES 211 Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R, Davies Executive ...

Author: Brian E. Kelly

250 downloads 1400 Views 14MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

JOURNAL FOETHE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES

211

Editors David J.A. Clines Philip R, Davies Executive Editor John Jarick

Editorial Board Robert P. Carroll, Richard J. Coggins, Alan Cooper, J. Cheryl Exum, John Goldingay, Robert P. Gordon, Norman K. Gottwald, Andrew D.H. Mayes, Carol Meyers, Patrick B. Miller

Sheffield Academic Press

This page intentionally left blank

Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles

Brian E. Kelly

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 211

Copyright © 19% Sheffield Academic Press Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd Mansion House 19KingfieldRoad Sheffield, SI 19AS England

Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press and Printed on acid-free paper in Great Britain by Bookcraft Midsomer Norton, Somerset

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 1-85075-579-5

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments Abbreviations

9 10

Chapter 1

THE SCOPE OF THIS STUDY 1. Introduction 2. The Extent of the Chronicler's Work 3. The Unity, Provenance and Dating of the Chronicler's Work

13 13 14 26

Chapter 2

RETRIBUTION IN CHRONICLES: A SURVEY AND CRITIQUE OF RESEARCH 1. Introduction 2. Retribution in Chronicles: Critical Interpretations 3. Summary and Conclusion

29 29 30 43

Chapter 3

EXEGETICAL STUDIES (l): INTRODUCTION AND LEXICAL TERMS

46

1. Introduction 2. Lexical Studies in the Chronicler's Theology of Retribution 3. Conclusion

46 49 62

Chapter 4 EXEGETICAL STUDIES (2): NARRATIVE AND CONCLUSION

1. Retribution in the Genealogical Introduction (1 Chronicles 1-9) 2. Retribution in the Narrative (1 Chronicles 10-29, 2 Chronicles 1-36) 3. Summary and Conclusion

64

64 67 106

6


Chapter 5

THE USE OF SOURCES IN MOTIFS OF REWARD AND PUNISHMENT IN 2 CHRONICLES 10-36 111 1. Sources in Chronicles: Welten's Critique 2. The Chronicler's Sondergut in 2 Chronicles 10-36 3. Summary and Conclusion

111 115 133

Chapter 6

ESCHATOLOGICAL THOUGHT IN CHRONICLES: A SURVEY AND CRITIQUE OF RESEARCH 1. 2. 3. 4.

Introduction Chronicles as a Non-eschatological Work Eschatological Interpretations of Chronicles Summary and Conclusion

135 135 137 148 154

Chapter?

ESCHATOLOGY IN CHRONICLES: AN INTEGRATIVE APPROACH 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Introduction: The Davidic Covenant in Chronicles The Significance of the Dynastic Promise The Hope of Redemption in the Depiction of the Cult Israelin Future Perspective Summary and Conclusion

156 156 158 167 175 185

Chapter 8

SUBSIDIARY THEMES AND MOTIFS IN THE CHRONICLER's PRESENTATION 1. Introduction 2. Paraenesis in the Speeches: Motifs of Appeal and Consultation; the Function of the Concluding Notice 3. The Presentation of War and Peace in Chronicles 4. The Relationship Between King and High Priest 5. The Presentation of Alliances in Chronicles 6. The'Kingdom of Yahweh'in Chronicles 7. Summary and Conclusion

186 186 187 190 199 204 211 213

Chapter 9

CHRONICLES AS THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRADITION 1. Introduction: Chronicles and the Deuteronomistic History 2. Judgment in the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles

216 216 219

Contents 3. Hope in the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles 4. Chronicles as Resumption and Development 5. Conclusion

7 225 229 233

Chapter 10 CONCLUSIONS

234

Appendix

RETRIBUTIVE MOTIFS IN 2 CHRONICLES 10-36

242

Bibliography Index of References Index of Authors

244 261 276


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study is a slight revision of a dissertation submitted to the University of Bristol in July 1993, which has been updated to take account of works on Chronicles which have since appeared, especially Sara Japhet's magisterial commentary (1993). All translations are my own, unless otherwise stated. I wish to express my warmest thanks to my supervisors Dr JJ. Bimson of Trinity College, Bristol, Dr M.J. Selman of Spurgeon's College, London, and Professor H.G.M. Williamson of Oxford University for their encouragement and generous help, and not least for the benefits of their own very considerable scholarship. Naturally the customary disclaimers apply! Funding for my study was provided by the British Academy, with further generous financial help from the Tyndale House Council, Cambridge. I am also grateful to Tyndale House for the use of its superb library facilities on several occasions, and to Miss Su Brown, Assistant Librarian at Trinity College, Bristol, for patiently tracking down obscure bibliographical items. I wish to thank Professor David Clines and the editors of the Sheffield Academic Press for accepting and preparing this work for publication. My greatest debt of gratitude is to my wife Anne, who sacrificed much to make this study possible. I dedicate this work to her with love. Scarborough, December 1995.

ABBREVIATIONS

AB ABR AnBib AID A UR BA BASOR BEATAJ Bib BKAT B TB BWANT BZ CBC CBQ ConBOT CTM EvT ETL FOTL FRLANT HAT HBT HSAT HSM HTR ICC IEJ Int JA OS JBL JETS JJS JPOS

Anchor Bible Australian Biblical Review Analecta Biblica Das Alte Testament Deutsch Aberdeen University Review Biblical Archaeologist Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Beitrage zur Erforschung des Alien Testaments und des Antiken Judentums Biblica Biblische Kommentar: Altes Testament Biblical Theology Bulletin Beitrage zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Biblische Zeitschrift Cambridge Biblical Commentaries Catholic Biblical Quarterly Coniectanea biblica. Old Testament Concordia Theological Monthly Evangelische Theologie Ephemerides Theologieae Lovaniensiae Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Handbuch zum Alten Testament Horizons in Biblical Theology Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments Harvard Semitic Monograph Harvard Theological Review International Critical Commentary Israel Exploration Journal Interpretation Journal of the American Oriental Society Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society

Abbreviations JSNTSup JSOT JSOTSup JSS JTS KAT NCB OLP OIL OTS PEGLMBS PEQ RB RTP SBLSP SBT SEA THAT TynBul TDOT TOTC TQ TZ VT VTSup WBC WTJ ZA W ZDPV ZTK

11

Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Kommentar zum Alien Testament New Century Bible Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica Old Testament Library Oudtestamentische Studien Proceedings, Eastern Great Lakes and Midwest Biblical Societies Palestinian Exploration Quarterly Revue Biblique Revue de theologie et de philosophic Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers Studies in Biblical Theology Svensk exegetisk arsbok E. Jenni and C. Westermann (eds.), Theologisches Handworterbuch zum Alten Testament Tyndale Bulletin G.J. Botterweck and H.H. Ringgren (eds.), Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Theologische Quartalschrift Theologische Zeitschrift Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum, Supplements World Biblical Commentary Westminster Theological Journal Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zietschrift des deutschen Paldstina- Vereins Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche


Chapter 1 THE SCOPE OF THIS STUDY 1. Introduction 'Retribution' and 'eschatology' refer to two of the principal concerns of theological investigation of the books of Chronicles: how the author conceived of divine reward and punishment, and the hope or expectation which he entertained for his community.1 Both themes are by any reckoning of the first importance for the interpretation of the work. They are regularly discussed in reviews of the Chronicler's theology,2 where it is typically argued that the writer develops these themes in ways that diverge significantly from the general Old Testament tradition. There is broad scholarly agreement on the nature and significance of the Chronicler's 'retributive' thought, but no consensus about his 'eschatological' outlook. The present study undertakes a fresh examination of these questions. It goes beyond previous investigations in arguing that these researches have, in large measure, misconstrued the nature and significance of retribution in Chronicles, and it offers a new and more positive appraisal of the phenomenon. Similarly, the 'eschatology' of the work (its outlook 1. The singular is used without prejudice to the question whether the work should be attributed to an individual or a circle, but the consensus opinion, which I consider likely, is that an individual author is responsible for the great majority of the work (albeit that he was handling traditional materials), and has expressed himself throughout with a distinctive personal style. 2. Among commentaries, summarizing reviews of the Chronicler's theology usually take the form of a number of discrete topics: cf. Rothstein and Hanel 1927: ix-xliv; Rudolph 1955: xiii-xxiv; Myers 1966: Ixiv-lxxxv; Williamson 1982: 24-33; Braun 1986: xxix-xli. Similar treatment can be found in book (Noth 1967; Japhet 1989) and article form (North 1963; Braun 1979). A different, integrative approach which looks for a 'centre' or 'thematizing idea* is represented by Mosis in his 1973 monograph (Chronicles as an extended typological treatment of the theme of exile and restoration) and Johnstone in his programmatic essay on "52» (1986).

14


on the future) is examined from several perspectives which together provide a wider base for determining the shape of the writer's theological outlook than earlier studies concentrating largely on the Chronistic portrayal of David have allowed. Besides contributing to a more balanced assessment of the theological outlook of the book, a careful interpretation of these central concerns may, it is hoped, cast some light on the Sitz im Leben and purpose of the work. The form of this study is as follows. This introductory chapter discusses questions of the unity, provenance and dating of the Chronicler's work, as a preliminary step to delineating his theology. The following chapter reviews and criticizes the prevailing understandings of the Chronicler's doctrine of retribution, for which Chapters 3-5 proposes a fresh interpretation. The approach here is based mainly on a synoptic comparison of Chronicles with its Vorlage (taking into account especially the writer's additions and interpretative comments), but the likely traditio-historical background to the writer's thought and the narrative structure of his presentation are also examined.3 Chapters 6-8 examine the eschatological question in a similar way. Chapter 9 reviews both themes in relation to the Deuteronomistic History, while Chapter 10 presents the conclusions and some implications for further investigation. Our study must begin by considering two closely related matters: the boundaries of the Chronicler's work, and its provenance and unity. Although it is becoming increasingly common in modern biblical interpretation to concentrate on the 'final* or 'canonical' form of a given work, it remains a necessary task to determine the original extent of a discrete text. This is still a problematic matter where Chronicles is concerned, not least because it is frequently maintained that the work has been significantly supplemented by other hands at different historical periods.4 2. The Extent of the Chronicler's Work The principal question here is the literary relationship of Chronicles to Ezra-Nehemiah: should these books be considered as separate works 3. Some of the historical problems raised by the Chronicler's additional material, most of which is used to illustrate his retributive doctrine, are discussed in Chapter 5. 4. It may be added that the validity of literary approaches to the biblical text depends upon historically delimiting that text or the stages of its growth.

1. The Scope of this Study

15

(presumably by different authors5) or do they belong together (in part at least) as a continuous composition, the 'Chronicler's History Work' ('chronistisches Geschichtswerk', ChrG)lA decision made at this level has immediate bearing on how the writer's theology and purpose should be assessed, since it defines how much and what kind of material can be properly termed 'Chronistic'. Also related to this question, and discussed below, are the dating of the work and whether the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1-9 were originally part of the composition. At present there is no overall scholarly agreement on any of these matters, so it remains a necessary (if only preliminary) task to set out and justify a working position. The previous consensus, which held that Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah originally belonged together as a single continuous composition, was due first to a brief but seminal discussion by Zunz (1966),6 who proposed four basic arguments for that conclusion. These were as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4.

The parallel between Ezra l.l-3a and 2 Chron. 36.22-23. The evidence of 1 Esdras. Linguistic similarities between the books. Similarity in outlook, interests and theology.

Subsequent work mainly elaborated or modified these points. Only a small number of scholars rejected this consensus,7 which prevailed without substantial challenge until 1968 when Japhet re-opened the question with an investigation of the linguistic evidence. Williamson (1977a: 5-82) extended this challenge with an examination not only of the vocabulary of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah, but also the evidence of the Greek versions, Josephus and 1 Esdras, and the ideology reflected in the respective works. Both Japhet and Williamson have concluded decisively that Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah could not be the work of the same author. Each of their arguments has in turn been disputed, but the current tendency is to support distinguishing authorship.8 The following 5. Willi's suggestion (1972: 181) that Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah are independent works of the same compiler has found little favour; cf. Ackroyd 1991: 329 n. 2. 6. Zunz 1966: 21-32. His work was originally published in 1832. 7. See Williamson 1977a: 5 n. 3 for details. 8. Recent studies which now distinguish authorship include: Newsome 1975, Braun 1979, Johnstone 1986, Throntveit 1987, De Vries 1989, Striibind 1991, Riley 1993, Selman 1994a; 1994b. The new arguments are rejected (or at least considered

16


discussion surveys and evaluates the debate since 1968. It supports Japhet's and Williamson's conclusion, although it interprets some of the evidence in different ways. 1. The Parallel of Ezra Ll-3a and 2 Chronicles 36.22-23 The parallel between these passages is close but not exact: there are slight differences in usage and Chronicles appears to end rather abruptly, in mid-sentence Own). This sudden and unexpected conclusion suggests that it has been abbreviated from the fuller form hi Ezra. The secondary version in Chronicles is sometimes attributed to a later hand by proponents of separate authorship.9 However, as I will argue in Chapter 8, it was in keeping with the purpose of the Chronicler to conclude his work on a note that resumes but also modifies the opening words of Ezra. The overlap has been explained as reflecting the history of the canonization process. According to Curtis and Madsen (1910: 3), the contents of Ezra-Nehemiah were considered as more important and so were accepted into the canon first. The overlap was then presumably intended to signal the original unity of the work when Chronicles was admitted into the canon. However, Willi (1972: 176-84) and Williamson (1977a: 10-11) argue that such a view is without any historical foundation and misrepresents the process of canonization. More recently, Haran (1985: 1-11; 1986: 18-20) has maintained that the 'Chronistic work' (1 and 2 Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah) was too long to be contained on one scroll (according to the prevailing custom of assigning a single scroll to each sacred work), so Ezra 1.1-3 was added as a catchline to facilitate the reader's transition from the scroll containing Chronicles to the one containing its continuation, Ezra-Nehemiah. Williamson (1987b: 56-59) rejects this claim, pointing out that neither the Pentateuch nor the Deuteronomistic History has catchlines, although both corpora are divided over several scrolls. To the objection that there is a thematic break between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah (the caesura of the exile), it should be noted that there are also decisive thematic breaks between portions of the Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History, and yet no catchlines are inserted to keep the narrative flowing without interruption. inconclusive) by Gunneweg 1981: 146-61; McKenzie 1985: 17-25; Becker 1988; Blenkinsopp 1989: 47-54; Oeming 1990: 41-47; Mason 1990: 7-11; see below for further comment. 9. Cf. Williamson 1982:415; De Vries 1989: 11.


17

Williamson (1983) considers Ezra 1-6 to be a later composition than Chronicles, and suggests that 2 Chron. 36.22-23 was subsequently added with a 'liturgical' motive of ending the book on a positive note (1977a: 7-10; 1982: 419). Japhet (1991: 310 n. 47) remarks that this argument is not otherwise attested: It may be based on the technique by which the Massoretes provide a 'positive' conclusion for all biblical books which have a negative ending; cf. the Massorah conclusions of Isaiah, Malachi, Ecclesiastes, and Lamentations. In all these cases, however, the appended verse is taken from the same passage, as near as possible to the end.

Since it is the Chronicler's practice to make free use of the earlier scriptures of his community (and other possible citations from EzraNehemiah are noted below), I consider it more likely that the writer himself adopted these verses from Ezra and assimilated them to his own style.10 There is, of course, no versional evidence that the verses were not once part of the original composition. In any case, even proponents of the unity of Chronicles with Ezra-Nehemiah recognize that this doublet provides no evidence of the original extent of the Chronicler's work.11 2. The Evidence of 1 Esdras This apocryphal work represents a Greek version of the last two chapters of Chronicles, Ezra and Neh. 8.1-13 in a continuous narrative. It also includes portions without parallel in the Hebrew Bible (1 Esd. 1.2122; 3.1-5.6) and presents Ezra 1-4 in a different order from the MT.12 1 Esdras can be seen either as a fragment of an original ChrG or as a compilation from Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah (which is itself fragmentary).13 Recently it has been proposed that the extant form of 1 Esdras is itself a complete work as it was written, or at least that the present beginning is original. There are some persuasive features to this suggestion. If it is correct, 1 Esdras is clearly a derivative work and cannot be adduced as evidence for the original form of the Chronicler's work. 10. So also Japhet 1993: 1062. 11. Cf. McKenzie 1985:17. 12. Cf. Pohlmann 1970: 14 for a tabulation of the approximate relationship between the books. 13. Cf. Pohlmann 1970: 15-26 for a review of opinions on this question up to 1955.

18


The 'fragment hypothesis' has been defended in the greatest detail by Pohlmann (1970). He considers the present beginning (icod Tiyosyev) too abrupt and unusual to be original, and takes a similar view of the ending (9.55, KCCI ejtun>vT|x9T|aav). Pohlmann argues that 1 Esd. 1.1 (= 2 Chron. 35.1, the account of Josiah's passover) presupposes a Vorlage which began at least at 2 Chronicles 34, with Josiah's accession and reforms. However, he then immediately suggests that the work originally contained the whole of Chronicles (p. 33). He also considers that the evidence of Josephus (Ant. 11.1-183) shows that he used 1 Esdras and did not know Ezra-Nehemiah in its present form (pp. 114-26). The 'compilation hypothesis' is defended by Williamson in a detailed response to Pohlmann (1977a: 14-36). Williamson concurs with Pohlmann that the present beginning and ending of 1 Esdras are not original. He concedes that the work may have begun with the equivalent of 2 Chronicles 34. The witness of Josephus is equivocal, but the additional material in 1 Esd. 1.21-22 (on which Pohlmann fails to comment) is a clear indication that 1 Esdras is a secondary work and not simply a fragment of the Chronicler's original composition. These verses state that Josiah acted uprightly (ml cbp9cb0n ta epya 'loocnou14) toward his Lord, but then notes that the people of that time were sinning against the Lord 'more than every people and kingdom...so that the words of the Lord rose up against Israel'. Williamson considers 1 Esd. 1.22 to be a repudiation of the Chronicler's doctrine of retribution (which presumably absolved previous generations from their share of guilt in the exile) and finds instead a veiled reference to Manasseh: "The words echo precisely the judgment on Manasseh's reign already mentioned in both 2 Kgs 21.9 and 2 Chron. 33.9, and the reference—en tois emprosthen chronois—makes it clear that the reader is expected to appreciate this' (1977a: 19). The text is not easy to interpret, but it appears from 1 Esd. 1.22 (KCCT' ofutov) that Josiah's reign is in view and that the conduct of that time is being described.15 Van der Kooij16 points out that the distinction in 14. 6p66ouai can mean 'to succeed', but the emphasis in 1 Esd. 1.21 is not on the success of Josiah's deeds but on their piety (ev KctpSia jcX,f|pei evoepeiaq). 15. Pace Williamson 1977a: 19 n. 1, xpovox? is better taken as 'times' rather man as 'written records' (the parallel with 1 Esd. 1.40 is not exact), 16. Van der Kooij 1991a. It may also be noted here that the verse need not be taken as a repudiation of the Chronicler's doctrine of retribution: as I argue in Chapter 4, this is more complex than is generally allowed, and already in 2 Chron. 28


19

vv. 21-22 is between the pious king and 'those who sinned', a contrast that corresponds exactly with Huldah's oracle, where Josiah is commended but Judah's doom is pronounced because of the people's disobedience (2 Kgs 22.15-20 = 2 Chron. 34.23-28). The oracle also speaks of the 'words (pi.) which you have heard' (cf. 1 Esd. 1.22, A,o7oi). An allusion to this passage implies instead that 2 Chronicles 34 was not part of the Vorlage of 1 Esdras. Van der Kooij adduces other evidence from this verse and elsewhere which indicates the originality of the present beginning of 1 Esdras (199la: 249-51). Although its form (iced + verb of action) is 'abrupt' and striking (Pohlmann, Mowinckel), this could reflect the translation style of the work, and has analogies in Lev. 1.1 and Num. 1.1. A closer analogy is found in Chronicles itself, in 1 Chron. 10.1-2, which abruptly begins the narrative without identifying Saul (although his genealogy is given in 1 Chron. 9.35-36) or the circumstances of the battle. Van der Kooij finds a further point of comparison in the form of these chapters: Just as in 1 Chron. 10, the author of 1 Esdr. 1 does not offer his remarks about King Josiah until later in the text, viz. at the end of v. 20 (cf. 1 Chron. 10: at the end of the chapter). 1.20 gave him the first opportunity to formulate in the text his general remarks, in the sense of a judgment of the king and the people. (1991a: 251)17

This approach is complemented by Eskenazi's recent suggestion (1986: 39-61) that 1 Esdras is a distinct composition by the Chronicler himself. She argues that the principal ideological characteristics of the two works are similar, and notes that both end apparently in mid-sentence with a verb (bin, contrast Ezra 1.3; mi em0i>vf|x6T|aav, contrast Neh. 8.13). Eskenazi comments (1986: 57): 'Each of these [concluding] verbs can be construed as a keynote or as a pointer to the communal task for the immediate future.' The argument that the present ending of 1 Esdras is original and not mutilated has found little support from commentators18 the Chronicler has signalled the coming exile as the inevitable outcome of the people's disobedience (a view reiterated in 2 Chron. 34.25). 17. 'Wie in I Chr 10 bietet der Autor von I Esr 1 seine Bemerkungen zum Konig Josia erst spa'ter im Text, namlich im AnschluB an V. 20 (vgl. I Chr 10: am Ende des Kapitels). 1,20 bot ihm die erste Gelegenheit im Text, seine allgemeinen Bemerkungen, im Sinne einer Beurteilung des K6nigs und des Volkes, zu formulieren.' 18. Williamson 1977a: 21-22. See also Coggins and Knibb 1979: 74 for a brief discussion of the possibility that the present ending is original.

20


but it may account more easily for the fact that Josephus's use of this work apparently breaks off at this point.19 A further study by van der Kooij (1991b) makes just this point and argues that the last two words (mi eiuowrixSiiaav) should be understood not as a short and independent phrase (which would be very unusual) but as part of the oilclause of v. 55. As a result, the last pericope of the work, 9.37-55, would not end abruptly but finish with a clause giving the reasons for the festivity and joy, a feature which would be comparable to the description in 7.10-15. On this basis, the present ending of 1 Esdras would be original. 3. Linguistic Similarities between the Books The lexical and syntactical features of Chronicles have been the subject of detailed investigation. It is agreed that these works have a great deal in common linguistically: this is apparent from the extensive lists of 'peculiarities of style and vocabulary' drawn up by Driver (1913: 53540), and Curtis and Madsen (1910: 27-36), and more recently, from Polzin's study (1976) of the syntax and lexicography of Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH). Appeals to linguistic evidence are necessarily limited in what they can 19. Not all of Eskenazi's arguments are convincing. Her description of the Chronicler's doctrine of retribution (1986: 51-53) is inaccurate, while the story of the three guardsmen (1 Esd. 3.1-5.6; cf. pp. 46-47), upon which she lays some emphasis, is almost certainly an interpolation, and thus has no bearing in a comparison of the works. Nevertheless, Eskenazi rightly notes the emphasis in 1 Esdras on the Davidide Zerubbabel (an emphasis absent from Ezra-Nehemiah). McKenzie (1985: 18-25) has defended a modified form of the 'fragment hypothesis' against Williamson. His position depends on Cross's argument (1975) that the first edition of Chronicles was equivalent to 1 Chron. 10-2 Chron. 34 + 1 Esd. 1.1-5.65 (= Ezra 3.13). This in turn reflects in part R. Klein's contention that 1 Esdras preserves an older text type of Ezra than Ezra MT (1966; 1969: 99-107). However, Klein's interpretation of the data may be questioned (cf. Eskenazi 1986: 60 n. 63), while McKenzie's (and Cross's) reconstruction of the prehistory of the text is challenged by the likelihood that Ezra 2 (= 1 Esd. 5.7-46) is dependent on Neh. 7.1-72a, a passage which is not paralleled in 1 Esdras (cf. Williamson 1985: 29-31). McKenzie's explanation for the absence of 1 Esd. 1.21-22 from Chronicles (1985: 163-64, 17778) is unconvincing and lacking in methodological control. Finally, we should note the early and separate translation of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah in the LXX (the LXX of Chronicles originating probably in Alexandria in the third century BCE; cf. Allen 1974: 21-23), which is an important early witness against any original unity of the works.


21

establish. Apart from the difficulties of distinguishing sources and determining the right comparative methods, by themselves such approaches can affirm at best only the likelihood of common authorship, a conclusion which must be corroborated by other means. Talshir (1988: 167) admits as much: [I]n order to prove that two works are by separate authors it is sufficient to prove that clear-cut oppositions in language and style exist between them. In contrast, there is no simple way to prove the opposite; for affinity in language between two literary works is no proof of authorship.

Japhet's ground-breaking article (1968) set out to provide just such evidence of 'opposition in language' between Chronicles and EzraNehemiah. She argued for thirty-six distinctions between these works in three areas: linguistic opposition in the formation of the imperfect consecutive and the form of theophoric names ending in n* or irr; technical terms dealing with the cult; and stylistic peculiarities. Her work has been challenged, but in my view not decisively.20 20. Cf. Welten 1973: 4 n. 18; Cross 1975: 14; Gunneweg 1981: 147. Three recent substantial discussions of the language of LBH should be mentioned here. (1) Polzin (1976: 54-55) questions Japhet's conclusions, although his challenge is really only at the level of how Japhet understands the relationship of the Hebrew of Chronicles to the 'standard' practice of LBH. Polzin is concerned with a different question than authorship, that of establishing the form(s) of LBH prose. To this end he demonstrates the considerable degree of syntactic and grammatical similarity between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah (excluding the Nehemiah Memoir). His illustrative discussion of the 'lexicographic features of the Chronicler' (pp. 124-50) is not intended to demonstrate unity of authorship, nor is it restricted to Chronicles or Ezra-Nehemiah. Polzin confirms instead that Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah (excluding NM) belong to the same stage of development of LBH (p. 71). (2) Rooker (1990) is positive about Polzin's contribution but finds some difficulties and inconsistencies in his methodology (pp. 31, 38). Polzin maintains that grammatical-syntactical distinctions provide more objective criteria than lexicographical features in discussions of linguistic typology (contra Hurvitz), but Rooker (pp. 58-59) considers this unfounded. Like Polzin's, Rocker's own work is concerned with a different question from that being considered here, but he examines a wider range of literature than Polzin and his concluding tables (pp. 182-83) contain a number of interesting obiter dicta which show both similarities and differences between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. (3) Talshir (1988) attempts to overturn Japhet's results and return the burden of proof to the advocates of separate authorship. His discussion has some methodological problems and omissions which make its conclusions less than convincing. Talshir distinguishes the components of EzraNehemiah but does not separate the synoptic and non-synoptic parts of Chronicles

22


Williamson (1977a: 37-59) advanced Japhet's argument considerably by concentrating not on alleged cases of linguistic opposition between the works but on their supposed similarities. To this end he examined afresh the lists of Driver, and Curtis and Madsen, which have been frequently cited as evidence of common authorship.21 He proposed a number of criteria for defining stylistic peculiarities, which were then applied to the 140 examples in the lists. From these Williamson deduced only six examples that satisfied the criteria (1977a: 58-59). Throntveit (1982) next applied Williamson's criteria (which were confined to vocabulary) to Polzin's list of grammatical-syntactical features of LBH. He concluded that the similarities in these respects between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah were also reflected in other post-exilic writings and that linguistic analysis alone could not decide the question of authorship. This view reflects the judgment of most commentators. It is also worth bearing in mind the limited amount of data available for comparison. As Selman (1994a: 68) reminds us, 'the nonsynoptic material in Chronicles comprises by far the largest literary unit in Late Biblical Hebrew. The evidence therefore for assessing whether Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah might be attributed to a single author is actually quite restricted'. 4. Similarity in Outlook, Interests and Theology The decisive case for difference in authorship is made above all, and most persuasively, with reference to the outlook and theological perspectives of the works, and among those who have examined the question in detail (Williamson 1977a: 60-70; 1982: 9-11; Braun 1979; Striibind 1991: 27-35), such a consensus has developed.22 Chronicles for comparative purposes (unlike Polzin). He interprets differently the significance of the contrast between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah over the formation of the 1 c.s. imperfect waw-consecutive. (Japhet [1968: 334-35] found full forms here in Chronicles with short forms used everywhere else.) Talshir attributes the absence of the rfpcopKi form from Chronicles (contrast its frequency in Ezra) to a different scribal tradition (pp. 172-75). Polzin (p. 55) made a similar suggestion and excluded this feature (A. 10 in his designation) from his summary of the syntax of LBH syntax (p. 75). Talshir does not engage with most of Japhet's list of technical terms or stylistic peculiarities (Japhet 1968: 348-71). 21. However, as Williamson (1977a: 38) points out, the original purpose of these lists was not to prove common authorship (which was accepted on other grounds) but simply to illustrate the Chronicler's 'peculiarities of style'. 22. Of recent studies, only Blenkinsopp (1988), Oeming (1990) and Mason


23

and Ezra-Nehemiah certainly have many interests in common, as previous commentators have noted (cf. Curtis and Madsen 1910: 4-5; Eissfeldt 1965: 530-32) but they also differ significantly in their treatment of these questions. Three important subjects may illustrate these differences. (i) David and the Davidic covenant. The presentation of Chronicles is dominated by David and the covenant with him, through which the dynasty is established and the temple is built. In Ezra-Nehemiah, by contrast, David is much more a peripheral figure, and no mention at all is made of the 'eternal covenant'.23 Williamson (1982: 10) remarks that the silence of Ezra-Nehemiah about the covenant is not explained merely on the grounds that such a subject would have been inappropriate in a work describing the post-exilic restoration, but that the silence reflects instead a substantial difference in outlook compared with Chronicles: the redactor of Ezra-Nehemiah retained a vital sense of the importance of the Sinai covenant and the promises to the patriarchs, whereas the Chronicler handled the theme of the Davidic covenant in a way that reflects 'a fundamental development in the covenantal basis of God's relationship with Israel'. Williamson goes on to speak of this development 'resulting] in a shift away from the emphasis of the Deuteronomic historian on the Exodus and Sinai'. It would perhaps be more accurate to describe the Chronicler's outlook as subsuming the Sinaitic (and patriarchal) traditions into the Davidic covenant, rather than neglecting them.24 Nevertheless, Williamson's basic point stands, and I will return (in Chapter 9) to consider the significance of this thematic difference between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. 'Deuteronomistic' thought and the importance of the Sinaitic covenant are evident especially in the confessions and prayers of Ezra 9 and Nehemiah 1 and 9, but no appeal is made there to the Davidic covenant as a basis for hope or restoration. (1990) have argued for the same outlook in both works (e.g. an anti-Samaritan Tendenz or hostility to mixed marriages); see below. 23. Cf. 1 Chron. 17.12; 2 Chron. 7.18; 13.5; 21.7; 23.3; contrast Ezra 3.10 and Neh. 12.24, which refer only to David's role in the institution of sacred song. 24. It is evident that the Mosaic Law has foundational significance for the Chronicler, while David is presented as a second Moses in his receipt of the nan for the temple (1 Chron. 28.11, 12, 18-19; cf. Exod. 25.9, 40). Allusions to the Abrahamic covenant are found with reference to the promise of the land (cf. 1 Chron. 16.16; 2 Chron. 20.7).

24


As for the actual description of the Judean restoration and the temple rebuilding, it seems likely that if the author/editor of Ezra-Nehemiah had shared the same outlook on the Davidic covenant as we find in Chronicles, he would surely have mentioned the Davidic lineage of Zerubbabel (cf. 1 Chron. 3.19; Hag. 2.23, in allusion to Jer. 22.24). But he makes no mention of this fact, nor does he place any emphasis on Zerubbabel as an individual. Instead, the redactor links him constantly with Jeshua and the other leaders of the post-exilic community. The book of Ezra is also silent or unclear about Zerubbabel's status as governor (cf. Hag. 2.21) and his role as temple builder (cf. Zech. 4.6-10), details which would hardly have escaped the Chronicler. Japhet attributes these facts to a distinctly different religio-historical outlook held by the editor of Ezra-Nehemiah.25 (ii) Aspects of the cult and religious practice. A concern with the temple and right religious practice is common to most of the post-exilic writings. This fact is hardly surprising, given the nature of that society. Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah reflect the same social reality, yet there are differences in their presentation which would be difficult to attribute to a common author. The Levites play a more important and extensive role in Chronicles (cf. Williamson 1977a: 69), while Ezra-Nehemiah mentions other cultic personnel, the Nethinim and the 'sons of Solomon's servants', who are absent from Chronicles (other than a bare mention of the Nethinim in 1 Chron. 9.2, which is dependent on Neh. 11.3; cf. Japhet 1968: 351-54). There also appear to be differences between the works on the relation between the Levites and the orders of gatekeepers and singers (cf. 1 Chron. 9.17-18, 33-34; 2 Chron. 5.12; Ezra 7.24; Neh, 11.15-16; 13.10). Writing at a time when the unity of Chronicles with Ezra-Nehemiah was not questioned, von Rad (1930: 82-85, 102) observed these differences but attributed them to the sources used by the compiler. Williamson (1977a: 60-61) has emphasized the different attitudes apparently taken over mixed marriages. While these are condemned in Ezra-Nehemiah, the Chronicler appears to condone them, mentioning numerous examples in the genealogies and elsewhere (cf. 1 Chron. 2.3, 25. Cf. Japhet 1982: 76: 'The House of David, as a vehicle of aspirations to national unity and as a symbol "par excellence" of salvific hopes, has no place in this world view [sc. of Ezra-Nehemiah] and therefore is conspicuously absent from the book.'


25

17, 34; 3.1; 4.17; 2 Chron. 2.13; 8.11), and failing to condemn Solomon on this point (contrast Neh. 13.26). (iii) The concept of Israel. There is a growing consensus that the Chronicler has an inclusive view of Israel's identity, which appears to differ in some respects from the understanding reflected in EzraNehemiah. Until recently the prevailing opinion maintained that the Chronicler's concept of 'Israel' was exclusivist and confined to Judah and Benjamin. Japhet (1989: ch. 3) has challenged this view with a broad base of evidence, while Williamson (1977a: 87-131) has shown from a close study of the use of ^RIB* in the work and the Chronicler's portrayal of Hezekiah (2 Chron. 29-32) that the survivors of the northern tribes retain their status as legitimate members of Israel. Both studies point out the difficulties that may arise in this area by projecting the outlook of Ezra-Nehemiah onto Chronicles (Williamson 1977a: 1-4; Japhet 1989: 269), and it will be shown in this study that this applies to other areas of the Chronicler's theology. Japhet's and Williamson's conclusion here is supported by Braun's observations (1977; 1979: 57) on the Chronicler's positive attitude toward the north. The viewpoint expressed in the various literary layers of EzraNehemiah is more difficult to determine. An 'inclusivist' attitude is reflected in Ezra 6.21 toward those native Israelites who 'had joined [the returned exiles] and separated themselves from the pollutions of the peoples of the land', as Pohlmann (1991) emphasizes. However, EzraNehemiah does take a hostile attitude toward 'the peoples of the lands' (Ezra 3.3) and those Yahwists of mixed origin who sought to participate in the temple building (Ezra 4.1-5). A more positive attitude toward aliens is reflected in Chronicles, and indeed, 2 Chron. 30.25 notes that inclusion was actually achieved in the religious assembly at Hezekiah's Passover. The list of ideological differences between the works could be extended to include the centrality of Jacob or the function of prophecy in Chronicles, but the above examples provide sufficient illustration of this point. To summarize: the linguistic arguments advanced in the past to support unity of authorship point in fact in the opposite direction, while the points of substantive ideological difference are decisive for treating Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah as works as separate authorship. That position is accordingly adopted in this study as a basis for

26


examining the Chronicler's theology and the relationship of his work to Ezra-Nehemiah.26 3. The Unity, Provenance and Dating of the Chronicler's Work The remaining questions of introduction may be discussed more briefly. A wide diversity of views have been expressed on these matters, which also affect interpretation, but as Selman (1994a: 65-75) notes, this range of opinion often reflects the different starting points of scholars. On the present form of the Chronicler's work, most discussion centres on the originality of the extensive genealogical material in 1 Chronicles 1-9, 23-27. Although these sections have often been seen as secondary27 or the subject of extensive reworking,28 a new appreciation of the function and form of these chapters has strengthened the case for accepting them, largely as they are, as integral and original parts of the composition.29 The most comprehensive study of 1 Chronicles 1-9 is by Oeming (1990), who argues against Noth for the basic coherence of 1 Chronicles 1-9 and the integral, 'kerygmatic' connection of this unit with the narrative. As we will see below, the recurrent themes of the narrative are indeed reflected in the lists and narrative notes of 1 Chronicles 1-9, which thus contribute to the total message of the work. It is generally believed that the author of Chronicles belonged to Levitical circles. This remains the most likely hypothesis, even if Noth (1967: 114-22) is correct in seeing the Levitical lists in the work (e.g. 1 Chron. 15.4-10) as secondary insertions. The dating of the work is necessarily related to judgments made about 26. Blenkinsopp (1989: 41-54) disputes Williamson's contention (1983b) that Ezra 2 is dependent on Neh. 7, and argues for a number of formal and ideological parallels between the works. On the first point (p. 43) Blenkinsopp's literary arguments are not very convincing, while his discussion of vocabulary and ideology (pp. 47-54) does not pay sufficient attention to the particular nuances of the Chronicler's presentation. Williamson (1987a) uses his understanding of the relationship between Ezra 2 and Neh. 9 in a criticism of McKenzie's (1985) attempt to reassert the 1 Esdras hypothesis. Neither Mason nor Oeming contributes new arguments in support of a unified 'Chronicler's History'. 27. Cf. Welch 1935; Noth 1967 (on 1 Chron. 23-27); Cross 1975; Braun 1986 (on 1 Chron. 23-27); Throntveit 1987. 28. Cf. Rudolph 1955; Kartveit 1989 (on 1 Chron. 1-9). 29. Cf. Johnson 1969; Johnstone 1986; Wright 1990 (on 1 Chron. 23-27); Willi 1991.


27

its original form. If the above arguments are correct, that Chronicles is to be distinguished as a literary entity from Ezra-Nehemiah and that 1 Chronicles 1-9 is integral to the work, then a date at some point in the fourth century BCE, perhaps the earlier half, would seem to agree with most of the available data.30 The two passages in particular which may help fix a terminus a quo for the work are the list of David's descendants in 1 Chron. 3.17-24, which takes us at least five generations after Zerubbabel, and 1 Chron. 9.2-34, the list of those who repopulated Jerusalem. Verses 2-17 of this passage are apparently dependent on Neh. 11.3-19; the small increase in the numbers in the Chronicler's version suggests the passage of a few years.31 As well as this section, and the overlap in 2 Chron. 36.22-23, the following smaller details indicate that the Chronicler knew and made use of Ezra-Nehemiah: 1.

The description in 1 Chron. 22.2-4 and 2 Chron. 2.7-15 (E 816) of the temple preparations, bracketing the Sidonians and the Tyrians, and detailing the payment in barley, wine and oil, and the shipment of logs by sea to Joppa, has several verbal parallels with the account of the construction of the second temple in Ezra 3.7, and may be taken to be a conscious allusion to that description.32

30. For discussions the dating of Chronicles, cf. Welten 1973: 199-200; Williamson 1977a: 83-86; 1982: 15-17; Throntveit 1987: 97-107. Welten's late dating (c. 200 BCE) rests on the evidence he sees reflected in the work of the author's acquaintance with Hellenistic armies and catapults (cf. 2 Chron. 26.15); these points are fairly answered by Williamson (1982: 338). Throntveit favours an original work c. 527-515 BCE, which he thinks was subsequently redacted to include 1 Chron. 19, 23-27 and parts of 29.1-19 (to account for the Persian loan-word birah and the reference to 'darics' in v. 7, part of Williamson's evidence for the terminus a quo of the work). In Throntveit's view the 'original' work reflected the dyarchic view of king and high priest found in Zech. 1-8 and so should be linked with early Restorationist hopes supposedly associated with Zerubbabel. However, a closer reading of the Chronicler's depiction of the office of high priest cannot support this interpretation (cf. Chapter 8 below). Throntveit's view is clearly influenced by Cross's and Freedman's understanding of the original form and purpose of Chronicles, but it involves an arbitrary severing of 1 Chron. 1-9 from the work, and some special pleading. 31. Williamson (1985: 348-49) suggests that both passages could be 'free editorial adaptations' of an original list. 32. Williamson (1985:47; cf. below) argues that the relationship is the other way round, but it seems more likely that the Chronicler (deviating from his Vorlage in this

28

Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles 1.

3.

2 Chron. 3.2 places special emphasis on the fact that Solomon 'began to build in the second month' of the fourth year of his reign (Ttfn 2nro mn1? "?m). While this agrees with the details of 1 Kgs 6.1, the language suggests that a further typological allusion is intended to the commencement of rebuilding works in Ezra 3.8 (t>nn "xn szrra). The Chronicler's additional information about Joash's assassins (2 Chron. 24.26) has been seen as an adaptation of data taken from Ezra 9-10.33

If the above interpretation correctly reflects the relationship of the books, it suggests that Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles are discrete yet related works, with Chronicles being written not only independently but also with some degree of conscious reference to Ezra-Nehemiah. The significance of this relationship is examined further in Chapters 9 and 10.34

description) would have wished to establish a typological connection with the account of the construction of the second temple. 33. Graham 1985. 34. Williamson (1982) sees Chronicles as pre-dating Ezra-Nehemiah, which he argues achieved its final form c. 300 BCE (cf. Williamson 1983b). Considering only the internal evidence of that work, Japhet (1982: 89 n. 55) allows a rather earlier date ('No material in the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah obliges us [... ] to date the book's composition any later than the first quarter of the fourth century BCE'), while she places Chronicles 'at the end of the Persian or, more probably, the beginning of the Hellenistic period, at the end of the fourth century BCE' (1993: 27-28). For the view that Chronicles presupposes Ezra-Nehemiah see also Johnstone 1986: 114; 1987.

Chapter 2 RETRIBUTION IN CHRONICLES: A SURVEY AND CRITIQUE OF RESEARCH

I. Introduction For most of the modern period it has been widely accepted that the Chronicler had a pronounced interest in the question of divine retribution.1 This theme is seen as central to the writer's theological and historical understanding, as well as playing a dominant role in the composition of the narrative.2 It is evident from even a cursory reading of the book, especially 2 Chronicles 10-36, that the author does affirm a strong link between obedience and blessing, and disobedience and punishment, within the lifetimes of individuals and generations. In making such a 1. Although 'retribution' usually denotes deserved punishment in modern parlance, strictly speaking it also embraces reward. The term is retained in this study for the sake of convenience and its place in past research, and is used neutrally to signify both divine reward and punishment (cf. German Vergeltung). 2. Besides the discussions considered below, cf. also Curtis and Madsen 1910: 9 (the Chronicler treated Israel's life as 'a church with constant rewards and punishments through signal divine intervention... He made more universal the connection between piety and prosperity and wickedness and adversity, heightening good and bad characters, and their rewards and punishments, or creating them according to the exigencies of the occasion'); Elmslie 1916: Iv; Pfeiffer 1952: 778-89; Weiser 1961: 324 ('The dominating viewpoint of the Chronicler's presentation of history is the idea of retribution carried through mechanically and, as regards each individual, down to the smallest details; when history does not fit in with it, it is usually distorted'); Eichrodt 1961: II, 307, 487; Bickerman 1966: 24-26; Westermann 1969: 256; Eissfeldt 1965: 535-37; Fohrer 1970: 247; Kaiser 1975: 186; Berg 1980 (the Chronicler's doctrine is an expression of God's active ['manipulative'] control of history which contrasts with the 'secular' view of Esther that stresses human responsibility); Braun 1986: xxxvii-xxxix; De Vries 1989: 119-21. Alone among modern discussions, Mosis (1973: 14-16, 201-202) denies the importance of this theme for Chronicles.

30


connection, of course, the Chronicler does not differ from the general perceptions of Yahweh's actions held by other Old Testament writers,3 but his work is certainly distinguished by the frequency of this theme and the manner of its treatment. It has long been argued that the author adhered to a rather rigid and extreme doctrine of divine reward and punishment (variously described as 'mechanical', 'individual' and 'immediate'), such that it led him to distort (or invent) the details of his historical presentation. This perception of the work is very widely maintained, even where a more sympathetic view is held of the writer's motives or historical method. This study takes issue with this broad consensus, arguing that the writer's retributive thought is considerably more flexible and complex than is usually allowed, and that it belongs within the current of his literary and theological predecessors. The exposition of this view is presented in detail in Chapters 3 and 4. While I am concerned primarily with the theological issues raised by the work, the related historical questions are also kept in view and are discussed in Chapter 5. As a preliminary step to my own discussion, this chapter reviews and criticizes significant ways in which the Chronicler's thought has been understood in the course of research. 2. Retribution in Chronicles: Critical Interpretations The theme of reward and punishment in Chronicles has received some degree of treatment right from the beginning of modern biblical criticism, given the role of Chronicles in that pioneering work. Thus de Wette (1817), remarking that the theme belonged to 'the design of the work', argued that this concern was intended to convey the writer's conviction about the antiquity of the Mosaic Law and worship: pious kings had maintained these practices but apostates had neglected them to their ruin.4 Graf (1866) and Vatke (1873) interpreted the 3. Koch argued in an influential essay (1955), mainly on the basis of texts from Prov. 25-29, Hosea and the Psalms, that there is no such thing as a doctrine of retribution in the Old Testament and that each person's deed instead holds the seeds of its own consequences. The validity of this view for Proverbs is firmly refuted by Bostrom (1990: ch. 3) while it is evidently not reflected in Chronicles. See also Chapter 9 below on the retributive doctrine in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic History. 4. W.M.L. de Wette, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die Bibel Alien undNeuen Testaments (Berlin, 1817), 2.135, cited in Rogerson (1992).

2. Retribution: Survey and Critique

31

phenomenon as the Chronicler's didactic means of edifying and admonishing his readers. Graf, who agreed with de Wette that the writer had no proper historical sense, found instead in his narratives 'the influence and activity of the idealizing, embellishing, reforming, explaining Sage' which used retributive themes so as 'to bring experience into better agreement with divine judgment than it appears to happen in history'.5 It was, however, Wellhausen (1878; ET 1885) who first discussed the subject in detail and set it within the context of the development of Judaism, according to his understanding of that religion and its origins. Wellhausen described retribution in Chronicles as 'a divine pragmatism' that was operative in the kingdom of Judah. This is presented as an absolute law that governed the fate of the southern kingdom and its rulers, strictly in terms of their fidelity to the Mosaic Law. Moreover, the long line of prophets which the author presents existed to give expression to this outlook (1885: 203): [T]hey connect the deeds of men with the events of the course of the world, and utilise the sacred history as a theme for their preaching, as a collection of examples illustrative of the promptest operation of the righteousness of Jehovah...Of course their prophecies always come exactly true, and in this way is seen an astonishing harmony between inward worth and outward circumstance. Never does sin miss its punishment, and never where misfortune occurs is guilt wanting.

Wellhausen then presented a review of 2 Chronicles 10-36, in which the writer was said to find moral grounds for each misfortune that was recounted but not explained by Kings. Conversely, 'Merit is always the obverse of success' (1885: 209), and only in the cases of those pious kings of whom the Chronicler approved (including Rehoboam and Abijah, against the evidence of the Vorlage6)were the blessings of God manifested in the concrete shape of fortresses, armies and children. Manasseh's fifty-five year reign (2 Chron. 33.1 = 2 Kgs 21.1), the longest on record, was also a 'stone of stumbling' which was removed by positing an unhistorical punishment in Babylon (1885: 207). Significantly, Wellhausen took no account of the theme of repentance in this narrative, which others have seen as the (equally) unhistorical basis for the king's restoration; instead, Manasseh was supposed to have 5. Cf. Graham 1990: 126, 132. 6. On the Chronicler's actual estimate of Rehoboam and Abijah (contra Wellhausen, and Welten 1973: 126), see below Chapter 4.

32


borne and atoned for his guilt through temporary imprisonment. Wellhausen's own concern with Chronicles had less to do with the work itself than with the light it cast on the formation of the Pentateuch (especially as a witness to the date of the Priestly Writing). Nevertheless, building on de Wette's researches, he helped confirm the image of the work as late and historically suspect, and priestly and rigid in outlook. Chronicles reflected the general tendency of its period, 'the conviction that the Mosaic law is the starting-point of Israel's history, and that in it there is operative a play of sacred forces such as finds no other analogy; the conviction could not but lead to a complete transformation of the ancient tradition' (1885: 224). Thus, in both its theological character and historical content the book was inferior to Samuel-Kings. Wellhausen's treatment of this theme was concise but very influential. In many respects it set the lines of later discussion of this aspect of the Chronicler's theology, both in commentaries and works of introduction, and in broader systematic studies of Old Testament theology,7 where the tone is frequently critical or dismissive. In some specific ways, however, Wellhausen's interpretation has been corrected or modified, as the following details indicate. First, whatever the historical basis to the account of Manasseh's captivity and repentance,8 it is now recognized that the Chronicler draws no theological significance from the length of his reign. This is a small but important point, since this is the most frequently cited example of the way in which the writer's alleged dogmatism led him to distort the historical record.9 Secondly, Japhet (1989: 177-78 n. 518) points out specifically against Wellhausen that the prophets' role is not to offer an interpretation of history in the light of a retributive theory but to preach repentance. Proper appreciation of this fact should contribute to a reassessment of the writer's outlook. It will be seen that the prophets testify to Yahweh's mercy and restorative will, more so than to his judgment. 7. Cf. the works cited in n. 2, the majority of which reflect Wellhausen's view in some measure. 8. Cf. Williamson 1982: 389. On the historical problem, see most recently Schniedewind 1991. 9. Cf. Berg 1980; Lowery 1991: 185-89. In the following chapter the number of examples is expanded where closer attention to context and the Chronicler's express statements (as well as his silences) should lead us to a quite different interpretation of his meaning.


33

More generally, it should be noted that Wellhausen accepted Chronicles primarily as a work of historiography. The writer's retributive doctrine was characterized in the first instance as a (dogmatic) heuristic method for understanding and reconstructing the past. This approach has been echoed by perhaps the majority of interpreters, who have understood Chronicles primarily as a supplement (or substitute) for the Deuteronomistic History. However, if it is accepted that the writer's purpose was at least as rhetorical and paraenetic as historical, then his use of history and his attitude to the received traditions would require a more complex evaluation.10 The middle years of this century brought a number of studies which helped moderate attitudes to the theological and historical value of Chronicles. In von Rad's (1930) monograph the writer's retributive doctrine was interpreted essentially as an exercise in theodicy, an account of Yahweh' s justice and its outworking in reward and punishment. A preoccupation with this subject was said to have marked the later stages of Israelite religion, and the approach of Chronicles was contrasted here with Job. According to von Rad, whereas Job considered the problem practically, Chronicles handled the problem of divine justice and history theoretically: 'The Chronicler proceeds from the other way round, beginning first with the dogma, and only then looking at reality' (p. 11)." As a result, reality is sometimes 'transformed' for the sake of the theory that God requites an individual within his life and not after it or at the end of history. Although such an insistence frequently involved the author in historical errors and inconsistencies, the Chronicler did not depict God's retribution as automatic, since the prophetic warnings testified to Yahweh's patience. The work thus treated human responsibility for sin and its consequences as a clear and rationally accounted for fact, in keeping with a comprehensive doctrine of divine justice. Moreover, this conception of history was fundamentally different 10. The view of Chronicles as primarily a work of historiography, intended to replace or supplement the Deuteronomistic History, is widely reflected also in works of introduction, Old Testament theologies and special studies (cf. von Rad 1962: 347-48; Fishbane 1985: 380-81; Japhet 1989: 505-16), although its theological and homiletical character is universally recognized. A different approach is taken in more recent German monographs, where Chronicles is seen variously as 'exegesis' of the Deuteronomistic History (Willi 1972; Strubind 1991), typologizing theology (Mosis 1973), or edifying historical fiction (Welten 1973). 11. 'Der Chronist als Theoretiker geht umgekehrt von dem primaren Besitz des Dogmas aus und sieht von da erst in die Wirklichkeit.'

34


from the Deuteronomistic one, in limiting the effects of retribution to the individual and his generation. Whereas Kings depicted the nation's 'constantly mounting guilt' ('sich unablassig haufende Schuld') and a 'collective judgment' ('Kollektivgericht') that overtook both north and south, such concepts were foreign to the Chronicler, who attributed the destruction of Jerusalem solely to the sins of the last generation (p. 13). This is now a standard judgment in Chronicles studies, but the following chapters will show grounds for seriously questioning its accuracy. Von Rad's later discussion of this subject (1962: 347-50) largely reproduces his earlier conclusions, though less appreciatively. He believed that, like the Deuteronomistic History, Chronicles was also concerned to point out a correspondence between guilt and punishment: 'the only difference is that it raises this correspondence to the level of complete rational proof—no disaster without guilt, no sin without punishment' (p. 348). Chronicles had 'tightened up and at the same time altered the Deuteronomist's pragmatism', and was thus very much the work of an epigone. Although this presentation was forced and unsatisfactory, a positive motive could nonetheless be discerned, for it represented the writer's contribution to the 'question of the share of the individual in Jahweh', which von Rad considered to be 'one of the hardest problems which cropped up in later Jahwism' (p. 349). Thus, the author 'never let himself on any consideration be forced from the position that Jahweh confronted each generation quite immediately and with his whole revelation' (p. 350). Von Rad's remarks here reflect the older critical view that a greater concern for the life of the individual was a special feature of exilic and post-exilic religious thought. According to this developmentalist view,12 this period was marked by a shift away from the strong emphasis on corporate and community responsibility of earlier Yahwism (said to be reflected, for example, in the case of Achan, or the punishment of Manasseh being visited on Zedekiah's generation) to a new recognition of individual responsibility. Ezekiel 18 was frequently cited in this context (cf. v. 20, 'The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son'), and several writers (Noth, Japhet, Dillard) have in fact suggested some clear association between the (supposed) thought of that passage and the Chronicler's interest in individual responsibility.13 It is now clear, however, that there 12. See especially Eichrodt 1961: H, 231-32; von Rad 1962: 443-44. 13. See below, Chapter 4, for a discussion of the Chronicler's actual use of the


35

is no simple, unilinear development in the Old Testament toward individual responsibility, and that both corporate and individual aspects of responsibility are reflected at many different points of the tradition. The attempt to see the author's retributive doctrine with its particular stress on the individual as a reflex of this alleged development must be rejected.14 Noth's landmark study of the Deuteronomistic History and the Chronicler's History (1967 [1943]) contained a discussion of the central theological ideas of Chronicles, hi which he basically endorsed von Rad's interpretation of retribution. According to Noth, the writer set out to serve the concerns of his own period by describing (in Chronicles-EzraNehemiah) the historical formation of the post-exilic community and its institutions. God had been active in this history, and the writer's doctrine of reward and punishment, strictly orientated toward the individual, was the principal expression of that conviction. The doctrine presupposed that God's will, as it was revealed in the Law, was known to Israel. The writer believed in the absolute validity of the doctrine, and therefore drew inferences about the phases of individual lives, such as Asa's illness (2 Chron. 16.1.) or Uzziah's leprosy (2 Chron. 26.16-21a). Rudolph's commentary (1955) is in many ways the bridge to modern discussion. His treatment of retribution stands broadly in the lines of Wellhausen and von Rad (p. x), but is modified to give greater scope to the role of divine grace. While the Chronicler strove to depict the 'correspondence wrought by God between deeds and destiny in the experience of individual kings' (p. xix),15 he did not pursue this thought to its logical extreme. In evidence of this Rudolph cited 2 Chron. 25.13 (the attack by Amaziah's mercenaries) and 2 Chron. 32.1-2 (Sennacherib's campaign). Neither incident could be traced to an actual sin, although it was certainly the general tenor of the writer's work to make such a connection. Rudolph further insisted that although the Chronicler understood divine retribution to be at work throughout Israel's history, the 'correspondence between deeds and destiny' was not a barren and unalterable principle but rested on the personal and merciful nature of Yahweh (1 Chron. 21.13; 2 Chron. 30.9) who facilitated repentance (p. xx). This point is developed in my own discussion, motif of Ezek. 18 and the correct interpretation of 2 Chron. 27-32. 14. On the related theory of 'corporate personality', see Rogerson 1970. 15. 'Die gottgewirkte Entsprechung von Tun und Schicksal am Erleben der einzelnen Konige.'

36


where particular stress is laid on the fact that Yahweh forestalls punishment, and indeed enables the human response to do his will (cf. 1 Chron. 22.12; 29.18; 2 Chron. 30.12).16 The subject next received critical attention from North (1963) as one of the four basic themes of the work.17 North discerned in the author's outlook a doctrine of 'short-range retributionism', the insistence that God fully requited human acts within this life. This doctrine was interpreted as a reaction to developing ideas among other parts of Jewry that were more disposed towards Persian ideas of postponed retribution or 'Greek notions of immortality' (for example, in the Alexandrian Wisdom of Solomon). Against such trends, the Palestinian Chronicler affirmed 'the emphatic last-ditch credo of a conservative' (p. 373). The writer held obstinately to 'the archaic Old Testament pattern of good and evil in this life, since no one knows what Sheol may hold in store' for the individual (p. 369). In viewing God's justice as so earth-bound, the Chronicler was said to be clinging very literally to the early Old Testament tradition, and his doctrine functioned principally as a kind of moral paraenesis (p. 374). North also argued that in the intervening post-exilic time the book of Job had brought the validity of the old doctrine of divine justice into question. The Chronicler responded to these more recent theological tendencies by refusing to admit that certain questions of merit had not been answered satisfactorily in the earlier biblical writings. Instead, he set about correcting their data to make them conform to the more traditional point of view. North expressed here what is still probably the consensus view of scholarship on the date and provenance of Old Testament reflection on the after-life and post-mortem retribution (although this subject has lately seen shifts of opinion and challenges18). However, it is very doubtful 16. The main issue, however, is the connection between the Chronicler's doctrine of retribution and his understanding of the temple, which is examined in Chapter 4. In a note in her recent study of the theme of peace in Chronicles, Gabriel (1990: 9 n. 28) comments in passing (with some justice) 'that the presuppositions and implications of this rather unfortunate expression (i.e. "dogma of individual retribution") for a theology of grace have never been reflected upon' ('daB die gnadentheologischen Voraussetzungen und Implikationen dieser nicht eben glticklichen Wortverbindung (i.e. "individuellen Vergeltungsdogma") nie reflektiert werden'). Chapter 4 below attempts in part just such an exercise. 17. The other themes identified are legitimacy, cult and 'Davidism'. 18. R. Martin-Achard (1992: 680-84) argues that the roots of faith in personal


37

whether the writer's interest in reward and punishment should be understood in this light. Although post-mortem retribution was certainly a lively concern in the later biblical and intertestamental period,19 the writer's views on this question are unknown and there is no indication that he was addressing it. Von Rad also hints at such an interest when he asserts that the burial notices in Chronicles were intended to signify 'the last possible point where Jahweh's activity could still reach a king [in] the granting or withholding of solemn burial'.20 However, this is an unlikely inference of the writer's purpose. While the burial notices certainly express a judgment upon the reigns of individual kings, the writer's use is not really different from other parts of the Old Testament where this motif features.21 More recent study has returned to the problem of retribution in both its historiographical and theological aspects, and has considered more closely its significance for the literary structure of the work. Welten (1973) has investigated the historical status of many of the motifs of reward in the author's Sondergut in 2 Chronicles 10-36. He concludes that by far the great majority of this information is fictitious and was intended (in a parabolic manner) to signify approval of certain reigns, so as to encourage the embattled post-exilic community and to affirm its legitimacy over against its neighbours.22 Japhet (1989) provides the most extensive and stimulating discussion of the problem, in a lengthy section of her monograph (pp. 150-98).23 resurrection are early and originate in Yahwism, in reflection on Yahweh's justice and commitment to his own people, but clear articulation of the idea is late. L.J. Greenspoon (1981: 247-321) maintains that the belief is early and 'arose out of the larger themes associated with YHWH as Divine Warrior' (p. 319), who had power to overcome death and release those under its control. Whether or not this association is accepted, Greenspoon does present grounds for believing that the idea of bodily resurrection may be traced back to pre-exilic times. 19. Cf. 1 Enoch 22-27; Dan. 12.1-3; Jub. 23.11-31; 2 Mace. 7; Wisdom of Solomon 1-6. The dating of Isa. 24-27 (cf. 26.19) is uncertain. 20. 1962: 350. 21. Cf. 2 Kgs 9.36; Jer. 8.1-3; 16.4; Isa. 14.19. 22. See Chapter 5 for a more detailed discussion of Welten's approach to the historical value of Chronicles. 23. Because of the wider availability of this work it can be expected to play an important role in future discussion of the Chronicler's thought. The English edition has only limited engagement with scholarly work subsequent to the Hebrew edition, which is based on her 1973 thesis (although there has not been a major challenge to her views). The monograph should now be read in conjunction with the author's

38


The importance of her interpretation requires that it be treated at some length. In Japhet's view, Chronicles must be understood as a work of historiography that was intended to bridge the gap inevitably created by the passage of time between the writer's present and the pre-exilic time, in order to render the formative past comprehensible and to legitimize the institutions of the present (1989: 7-10, 509-16). As a historiographical work, Chronicles does not present its ideas in a direct or systematic way (p. 7), but Japhet believes that a topical approach to its ideology (or better, its theology) is possible. Thus, her study eschews many of the conventional questions of research, in favour of interpreting the book as a self-contained entity expressing a clear and coherent system of thought. Japhet concludes, in fact, that Chronicles is unique and independent in its treatment of some fundamental themes of biblical faith, including the nature of divine justice and providence (p. 505). Japhet's contribution to the study of retribution in Chronicles lies in two main areas. First, she enquires into the origins of the writer's particular concept and describes it quite precisely. Secondly, she provides extensive illustrations of the way she believes the narrative was reworked to express that concept. Japhet also makes important observations on the function of the Chronistic prophets, and the motif of divine testing. Japhet asserts that the fundamental idea in the writer's 'system' is an understanding of history as a continuous expression of the relationship between God and his people, one that is unchanging and not historically constituted (pp. 116-17). God is active hi the history of Israel, and the guiding principle for his action is that of reward and punishment (pp. 150-65). Such retribution is meted out constantly and consistently according to the system's rules, which are derived from the principle of 'absolute divine justice' (cf. p. 153). Biblical historiography is said to be based on the belief that history is the actualization of divine justice. Japhet holds that both Kings and Chronicles are works of theodicy which are concerned to vindicate the Tightness of Yahweh's activity through the time of the monarchy. However, these works differ in their exhaustive commentary (1993; see especially pp. 44-45), which extends her conviction that Chronicles embodies a distinctly different, even contradictory, 'historiosophy' (philosophy of history) from that of the Deuteronomistic History, at the root of which lie, inter alia, different understandings of divine justice. An important concern of the present study is to interact with this claim.


39

'starting points' and concepts of divine justice. The 'starting point' for the Deuteronomist is the challenge posed by the destruction of Judah, for which it provides a dual explanation: Manasseh's sins and the cumulative guilt of the people (pp. 158-60). However, the solution in Kings was believed to be unsatisfactory in the long run because it raised the problem of the deferral (or withholding) of punishment, allowing disobedient generations to escape scot-free, while the last generation before the exile bore an excessive load of punishment. Japhet believes that this problem was confronted in the exilic period by Ezekiel, who denied the previously accepted idea of cumulative guilt or the notion of punishing one generation for the sins of another (cf. Ezek. 18.20). By contrast, the Chronicler's 'starting point' is within the overall religious system which the work expresses (p. 154): The impetus is not an immediate need to provide the believer with answers to the acute challenge posed by the destruction, but rather a general religious awareness. This awareness entails a desire to demonstrate that divine justice is at work in the world and can be discerned throughout Israelite history.

Thus, Chronicles is believed to express the same concept of strict divine justice as was customarily attributed to Ezekiel, along with the prophet's assertion of individual responsibility (pp. 161-63).24 Japhet holds that the writer refined this further into an 'imperative of reward and punishment': 'Not only is man rewarded or punished for his deeds—each and every deed must be requited. That is the unavoidable consequence of human behaviour' (p. 163). The corollary of this claim is that there can be neither cumulative guilt nor collective retribution: the destruction must be attributed exclusively to Zedekiah and his generation, while the king and people are thought of 'as distinct "individuals", each responsible for its [sic] deeds' (p. 163). Japhet next illustrates how the historical narrative of Kings has been reworked according to the principle of retribution. She argues that this takes five forms: 24. Japhet concedes that the actual interpretation of Ezekiel at this point and 'whether it really discusses reward and punishment as such' is a disputed question (1989: 161 n. 474), but elsewhere (p. 163 n. 482) she accepts the validity of the old notion of 'corporate personality', which she believes gave ground to a new emphasis on individual responsibility as a 'result of sociological influence on religious thought'. A connection between Chronicles and the thought of Ezekiel is re-affirmed in Japhet's commentary (1993: 45).

40

Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles 1. 2. 3.

4. 5.

adding appropriate punishments for transgressions in the Vorlage where such may be lacking; conversely, adding recompense for piety; adding a suitable sin for misfortunes, 'since every difficulty, affliction and defect is automatically perceived as retribution' (p. 167); providing a source of merit for every success; and specifying the causal link between sin and apparent punishment, where this is not stated in the Vorlage.25

Japhet thus argues that a comprehensive outlook has been applied systematically to reinterpret 2 Kings 12-25. In all this, she is actually quite traditional in her approach, which expressly reflects Wellhausen (pp. 154-55). Japhet supplements this with the claim that there is a further qualitative difference between Samuel-Kings and Chronicles (pp. 155-56): The qualitative difference lies in [the Chronicler's] need to explain good and evil. The Deuteronomist does not account for the existence of good. When he describes a change for the better in Israelite history, he does not attribute that change to divine justice, but to God's compassion [... ] In the case of the Chronicler, things are different.f... ] he explains both good and evil in terms of divine justice.

The validity of this claim is examined below and in the following chapter. According to Japhet, the writer's belief in absolute divine justice makes all history into theodicy and gives prime importance to human moral responsibility: 'Man becomes master of his fate; his actions are responsible for whatever befalls him. Moreover, these actions are the result of his free choice' (p. 175). Within this system repentance has great importance in neutralizing the rather rigid workings of retribution. The role of the Chronistic prophets in warning and preaching repentance has been touched on before (by von Rad and Noth) but Japhet gives the most thorough treatment of this 25. The additional material which Japhet assigns to each category is as follows: (1) 2 Chron. 13.17-20; 16.7-9; 21.16-19; 28.17-18; 33.11; (2) 2 Chron. 14.5-7, 11-14; 15.15; 17.2-5, 10-19; 20.1-30; 24.15-16; 26.6-15; 27.3-6; 32.27-30; (3) 2 Chron. 16.10, 12; 20.35-37; 24.17-18; 25.14-16, 27; 26.16-20; 35.22; 36.12-16; (4) 2 Chron. 11.5-23; 12.6, 7, 12; 13.10-12; 18.31; 25.7-10; 33.12-13; (5) 1 Chron. 10.13-14; 2 Chron. 12.2, 5; 21.10; 28.19. It is clear from these examples that Japhet treats repentance as a meritorious act (cf. 2 Chron. 12.6, 7, 12; 18.31; 33.12-13).


41

topic and makes an interesting connection between the Chronicler's outlook and the views on warning (rtfconn, mrrm) and premeditation developed in the rabbinical period (pp. 184-87). She does, in fact, attribute the genesis of the rabbinical outlook on this question to the later biblical literature, and to Chronicles in particular.26 Finally, Japhet concedes that several wars recounted in the book cannot be understood as punishment (pp. 193-94). She infers instead that these are examples of divinely sent tests of faith. Japhet has without doubt presented the most comprehensive treatment of this topic. Nevertheless, her discussion cannot be said to be the last word on the subject, because it raises some critical questions about the writer's theological outlook and purpose. It must be asked first whether Chronicles does express so comprehensive a system of thought as Japhet maintains. Certainly she assumes that a systematic, abstract approach can be found within biblical thought, especially in the Deuteronomistic and later writings. Thus, in Japhet's general discussion of retribution (pp. 151-55), Yehezekel Kaufmann's views are taken as definitive, while the idea of proportionality ('measure for measure', pp. 157-58; 170) is presented as a presupposition of biblical justice. Japhet believes that the Chronicler sharpened this principle to its logical extreme (p. 214): The system of divine retribution demands that [Zedekiah's] generation be 'exceedingly unfaithful'; likewise, in keeping with the principle of 'measure for measure', their desecration of the temple justifies its destruction.

However, this seems too episodic a way of reading the work and, as will be argued in Chapter 4, it misses the indications of inevitable doom and exile which the writer gives as early as 2 Chronicles 28 and makes definitively clear in 34.28. The doctrine of divine justice and its concomitant insistence on human freedom are also said to rule out 'ancestral merit' (pp. 157, 162-63, 165, 456 n. 32). Japhet notes two passages which appear problematic in this light: the reference to Ahijah's prophecy in 2 Chron. 10.15, where the division of the kingdom is the fulfilment of Yahweh's word to Jeroboam; and the withholding of punishment on Jehoram in 2 Chron. 21.7 because of Yahweh's 'covenant which he had made with David'. 26. This is probably the most important example of the way in which Japhet sees Chronicles as a bridge to later Judaism (cf. 1989: 505). The subject is taken up again in the conclusion to this study.

42


The first example is described as 'an inconsistent holdover from 1 Kgs 12.15', and the second as 'an exceptional case' (p. 162 n. 477). Japhet argues thus in the first case because she believes the author could not conceive of punishment for Solomon's sins being visited on his descendants (pp. 156-57; cf. 1 Kgs 11.11-13). In reply to this it will be argued in Chapter 4 that the Chronicler has a more complex understanding of Solomon's obedience and the significance of his reign than Japhet's explanation allows. The second case has nothing to do with 'ancestral merit'; its significant changes from 2 Kgs 8.19 show that it is really concerned with the Davidic covenant, which, it will be argued, is a theme of fundamental importance for understanding both the retributive doctrine and eschatological outlook of the work.27 These examples (which could be multiplied) point to difficulties in Japhet's attempt to derive what can only be described as a rather rationalistic system of belief from Chronicles: statements and incidents which do not conform to this pattern are taken by her as evidence of 'inconsistent editing' or a failure to systematize.28 It would be fairer to ask whether the outlook of the work is as closed as she maintains. Japhet's tendency to over-systematize the writer's thought comes most plainly to the fore in her insistence that theodicy or divine justice is the controlling idea in the work's concern with retribution. In the following chapters it will be argued instead that a much more central theme is divine grace. Japhet has very little to say on this subject, orientating everything instead to the themes of divine justice and providence. Similarly, while her treatment of the defensive wars in the book as examples of divine testing has some validity (pp. 191-98), she overlooks the real kerygmatic significance of these reports as occasions of divine saving acts on Israel's behalf.29 27. Contra Japhet (1989: 497). Cf. Chapter 7 below for a discussion of this theme. 28. Three examples may be cited by way of illustration: (1) Japhet finds 'inconsistency' in the Chronicler's treatment of retribution in 2 Chron. 25.13, which 'was not reworked thoroughly' (1989: 154 n. 453). (2) Her attempt to deny the writer a real angelology or belief in supernatural beings (pp. 137-49) is forced and involves her in special pleading. (3) She concedes that some passages limit human freedom in Chronicles (2 Chron. 22.12; 29.18-19; 2 Chron. 30.12; cf. p. 175 n. 509), but does not integrate this sufficiently into her view of the anthropology of the work. 29. For a discussion of the motif of 'Yahweh war' and its eschatological/ kerygmatic significance, cf. Chapter 8 below. It should be noted that Japhet discerns


43

More recent discussions (Braun 1979: 55-56; Williamson 1977b: 14954; 1982: 31-33; Johnstone 1986) have recognized that retribution is more closely linked in the Chronicler's understanding with repentance. These writers have drawn attention to the writer's special theological language, as well as his stock motifs of reward and punishment. These observations are developed in the following chapter, where the significance and tradition-historical background to the language are explored. Braun (1979: 55-56) and Williamson (1977a: 67-68) have also argued that the Chronicler's particular concept of retribution and the terms related to it are absent from Ezra-Nehemiah (including the prayers of Ezra 9 and Nehemiah 9), or are used in a quite different way. It is thus taken as a criterion for distinguishing authorship of the different works. Probably the most emphatic use of the idea of 'immediate retribution' is to be found in Dillard's commentary (1987). Dillard sees the doctrine as fundamental to the structure of the narrative in 2 Chronicles 10-36, especially to its time scheme. Following Rudolph (1952), he holds that the narrative has been strictly periodized into times of faithfulness and unfaithfulness (within which some events may have been dischronologized) to give expression to the doctrine. Virtually all the Sondergut is seen to be 'in the service of retribution theology' and Dillard believes that Ezekiel or some similar source stimulated the author to offer 'a counterpoise' to the retributive doctrine found in Kings (1987:80-81).30 3. Summary and Conclusion The history of research into this problem has revealed a basic consistency of approach, which has been modified at different points, but not radically so. in Chronicles a very positive conviction about the human capacity to know and do God's will; see below. 30. Dillard (1987: 77) rightly lays great store by the Chronistic insertion of 2 Chron. 7.13-15, but one-sidedly refers to it as 'spelling] out the key concepts and vocabulary of retribution theology'; see Chapter 4 for an analysis of these verses. Other recent writers (Begg 1982; Duke 1990) have stressed the paraenetic or hortatory significance of retributive thought, rather than its supposed purpose as a comprehensive theory of history. However, these discussions, while they doubtless pick up an element of truth in their interpretations, tend to oversimplify the Chronicler's message (either into rather wooden moralizing or an extended summons to support the cult in the pursuit of blessing).

44


First, beginning with Wellhausen's remark about a 'divine pragmatism' perceived by the Chronicler to be at work in the history of Israel, most writers have accepted that the writer was primarily a historian who had set about reformulating the traditions of Samuel-Kings according to certain dogmatic presuppositions. Contrary to the evidence of Samuel-Kings, the Chronicler assumed that the Priestly Law had always been in force and had been faithfully obeyed in the kingdom of David and Solomon, but with much less consistency and zeal in postschism Judah. The Chronicler accepted the absolute validity of the Law (indeed, as part of that institution he could scarcely imagine things otherwise), which he demonstrated by filling out the gaps or puzzling inconsistencies in the earlier traditions. Everywhere he strove to remove ambiguity from his received historical picture. Not infrequently, this resulted in a narrative which was contrived or historically unreliable. Japhet's belief that the Chronicler depicts a world controlled by a strict theodicy is essentially a variant on this idea. Secondly, the Chronicler is believed to have defined the older biblical doctrine of retribution much more sharply. Notions of collective judgment or the deferment of punishment to a later generation were rejected in favour of a divine recompense strictly merited by the individual and confined to the faithful or disobedient phases of his life. Some attempt has been made to account for this supposed shift in thought. Thus, Chronicles has been seen as reflecting a growth in the biblical tradition of the notion of individual moral responsibility (Noth, von Rad, Japhet, Dillard), or reacting against speculation about post-mortem retribution (North). This summary represents the general consensus in scholarship about a central feature of the writer's theology. Nevertheless, a fresh investigation of the problem is a desideratum, for the following reasons. First, the historical explanations offered for the 'individual' and 'immediate' character of the Chronicler's doctrine are unconvincing. Both 'individual' and 'corporate' aspects of responsibility can be found in many different strata of the biblical tradition, including some of the earliest,31 with no simple pattern of historical development.32 The notion that the writer's emphasis on the 'individual' is a reflection of a late 31. E.g. Abraham's prayer for the righteous in Sodom in Gen. 18.23-32. Similarly, the 'collectivist' interpretation of the punishment of Achan's family (Josh. 7.24-25) is increasingly questioned; cf. the following note. 32. See Rogerson 1970; also 1981: 1156-57, and bibliography.


45

stage of religious psychology does not stand up to close scrutiny. Secondly, the widespread assumption that Chronicles is essentially a piece of dogmatizing historiography has coloured evaluation of the work. Both as theology and history it has been depicted very much as inferior to the Deuteronomistic History. The theological character of the work, as well as its genre, needs to be considered afresh, as does the writer's understanding of the relationship of his work to the Deuteronomist' s.33

3 3. See Chapter 9 for a discussion of some of the aspects of this latter issue.

Chapter 3 EXEGETICAL STUDIES (l): INTRODUCTION AND LEXICAL TERMS 1. Introduction The Chronicler's retributive outlook is examined in detail in this and the following chapter, where it will be argued that the traditional understanding of the writer's doctrine (as a theodicy focused rather narrowly upon the lifetime of an individual person or generation1) must be substantially reformulated and re-evaluated. The writer's retributive thought is analysed in the following contexts: 1.

2.

the key lexical terms which express: (i) positive human responses of faith and repentance toward Yahweh; (ii) negative responses of apostasy and sin; (iii) Yahweh's reaction to these contrasting attitudes; and the narrative notes in 1 Chronicles 1-9, and the self-contained pericopae within the narrative of 1 Chronicles 10-29 and 2 Chronicles 1-36.

The findings of these two chapters are taken up again in the conclusion to this study, which discusses the significance of the Chronicler's retributive doctrine in relation to other aspects of his thought, as these contribute toward the overall interpretation of the work. Previous researches have of course stressed the close correspondence between piety and reward, or unfaithfulness and punishment, in the Chronicler's work. They have also usefully identified the writer's stock motifs of retribution (although some points of difference in interpretation about these remain2). However, the primary focus of this study lies, so 1. See especially Dillard 1987: 76-81. 2. See Braun 1979 and, more fully, the appendix at the end of this study, which presents the full distribution of these motifs in 2 Chron. 10-36. An important question concerns whether the Chronicler invariably perceives sickness as divine punishment; cf. the discussion below on Asa.

3. Exegetical Studies (1)

47

to speak, at the other end of the causal chain, with describing the nature of the relationship which subsists between Israel and Yahweh, and which finds expression in the characteristic motifs and language of the work. Although this bond is rarely spoken of in explicitly covenantal terms, it will be argued from several lines of evidence that the language and thought of covenantal theology underlie treatment of this theme, and that it is within this context that the writer's retributive outlook must be fundamentally understood.3 As well as the vocabulary and motifs, we must examine the nature and form of the discourse. Chronicles is a complex work whose Gattung is not easily decided, although it is generally agreed that it shares some of the characteristics and concerns of 'history' as that genre was understood in the ancient world.4 Long (1984: 7-8) offers the following general definition: History is an extensive, continuous written composition made up of various materials [... ] and devoted to a particular subject and historical period. The author describes events presumed to have actually occurred but assembles his sources [...] according to some cohering rubric of intelligibility. Thus he will impose structural and thematic connections which unify the work and implicitly or explicitly convey his evaluation of the importance of certain events.

'History' is distinguished from 'chronicle' or mere annalistic report by the element of interpretation, which for the Chronicler, no less than for the other narrators of the Old Testament, is explicitly theological. Here, the concept of retribution plays an evidently central role in the work's overall 'rubric of intelligibility', towards the task of ordering and understanding the events of the past. At the same time, the paraenetic style of the work has long been recognized, which is due in no small measure to the rhetorical character of its language and 'addresses' (royal and prophetic speeches and prayers). A further definition of the literary genre of history stresses the description of the activity of personal agents within a specified period,

3. For the Chronicler the ma par excellence is that which was made with David; nevertheless, this necessarily involves Israel as Yahweh's people; cf. 1 Chron. 17.9-10; 2 Chron. 7.14. 4. Welten (1973) dissents from this consensus; see Chapter 5.

48


and the causal connection between events.5 Chronicles is distinguished by the extent to which it attributes events to Yahweh's direct activity.6 At many points his activity in requiting piety or unfaithfulness is presented as explicit and direct,7 whereas elsewhere this activity is implied, usually through stock motifs of reward and punishment, and the temporal conjunction of actions and results.8 However, it is less frequently observed that Yahweh does not only respond to the conduct of his people, particularly as it is focused in cultic fidelity,9 but also initiates events. Chronicles presents Yahweh as sovereign over human affairs generally, as well as being Israel's God.10 His own role in initiating and guiding the course of events is central to the theology of the book. At times this activity is made explicit: most notably, the impulse and opportunity to fetch the ark are attributed to divine origin.11 At other times, evidence of Yahweh's pro-active involvement may be deduced from the sequence of events, in the same way that it is implied that certain outcomes are intended as divine reward or punishment. The discussion therefore draws particular attention to this pattern of divine activity, initiatory as well as reactive, and its significance for understanding the author's retributive thought. A concern with Yahweh's activity of rewarding and punishing pervades the work. This is most evident in the post-Solomonic narrative of 2 Chronicles 10-36, which is structured explicitly around this theme, but the perspective is also reflected in the genealogies of 1 Chronicles 1-9 and is an important concern throughout the narratives of Saul (1 Chron. 10), David (1 Chron. 11-29) and Solomon (2 Chron. 1-9). It may be

5. Long 1984: 250. 6. Cf. Japhet 1989: 125-26. 7. Cf. 1 Chron. 10.14, Yahweh puts Saul to death and turns the kingdom over to David; 2 Chron. 12.2b, Shishak's invasion; 13.15c, God routs Jeroboam and all Israel; 14.6, Yahweh grants Asa rest. 8. Cf. 2 Chron. 13.21, Abijah's family flourishes; 15.19, Asa enjoys peace; 16.12, Asa's illness; cf. v. 10. 9. The Chronicler shows a greater interest in specifically cultic rather than more general moral questions, as Japhet (1989: 262-65) notes, but that is a reflection of the cultic orientation of his work, and the point should not be overpressed. The Law for the Chronicler embraced the whole of Israel's existence (cf. 2 Chron. 19.10). 10. Cf. Japhet 1989: 41-53 on 'the monotheistic idea' in Chronicles. 11. 1 Chron. 13.2; cf. also the indications in 2 Chron. 10.15, 22.7 and 25.20 of Yahweh's superintendence over human affairs.


49

added that the different forms reflected in the book, such as prophetic and royal speech, prayer and authorial comment, all have divine reward and punishment as a recurrent and often dominant theme.12 2. Lexical Studies in the Chronicler's Theology of Retribution Investigations into the writer's special theological vocabulary have an established place in helping to define the theology of this work (as, indeed, they do in other branches of biblical studies), and several studies have focused closely on this aspect of the work.13 However, two caveats are called for. The first is the general principle that the interpretation of a work depends less on its vocabulary than on its larger sense-units. Thus the individual pericopae and the context of a given term are a surer guide to the Chronicler's meaning than atomistic concentration on terminology.14 The writer's distinctive vocabulary is part of a larger set of theological ideas which can of course be expressed in different and more indirect ways. The pericopae may also help determine the content of this characteristic language, even where the terms are not expressly used.15 12. On this aspect in royal speech and prayer in Chronicles see Throntveit 1987: 84-85. 13. For recent studies of the Chronicler's vocabulary see especially Williamson 1979b: 149-51; 1982 passim; Braun 1979; McCarthy 1982; Johnstone 1986. 14. Moreover, the context(s) may define more closely the meaning of the vocabulary, whatever the traditional-historical (diachronic) background to the terms; cf. Barr 1961. On the contribution of linguistics and discourse analysis to hermeneutics, see Cotterell and Turner 1989. 15. For example, physical healing is implied in the account of Hezekiah's sickness and prayer in 2 Chron. 32.24: Yahweh 'answered him and gave him a sign'. Because the Chronicler has recast the relationship between Hezekiah and Isaiah over against the way it is presented in Kings, he omits the prophetic oracle: 'I have heard your prayer...; behold, I will heal you [•p ten -3:n...-[r6ari HK TWOS]' (2 Kgs 20.5).

However, the striking parallels in language between this passage and 2 Chron. 7.14 may suggest that the root ssn embraces physical healing for the Chronicler, as well as the sense in which it is usually taken, as a metaphor for 'forgiveness' or 'full restoration'. This suggestion is supported by the account of Asa who in his sickness 'did not seek Yahweh' (2 Chron. 16.12), and the description of Jehoram's disease (2 Chron. 21.18) as 'incurable' (Rsna p*1?). The same expression is used in 2 Chron. 36.16 to describe the spiritual condition of the people. These allusions and

50


Secondly, the writer's special vocabulary is, to some extent, synonymous in usage: the individual terms often appear collectively in pericopae with some overlap in meaning, and it would be a mistake to define the terms too discretely. In this stylistic fact we can detect something of the character of Chronicles as conscious rhetoric.16 With these caveats in mind, we may turn to a more detailed examination of the Chronicler's distinctive vocabulary. Many of these terms are concentrated in the Chronistic additions in 2 Chron. 7.12b-16a, especially tzrn/tcpD; âin; wa niph.; and mo.17 Examples of this vocabulary are also found earlier in the work than in 2 Chron. 7.12b-16a. Most of these earlier references are theologically neutral, but some of them do contribute to an understanding of the writer's thought. Yahweh's response is also typified in 2 Chron. 7.14 by ante, nô, and «sn, terms which recur in varying degrees in the subsequent narrative. It is difficult to overstate the significance of 2 Chron. 7.12b-16a for the interpretation of the work. This unit expresses in nuce the central theological conviction of the work, a fuller statement of which is provided by the immediate context, the extended oracle of 2 Chron. 7.1222. As well as the positive vocabulary mentioned above, the Chronicler examples of word-play suggest that the Chronicler also sees a relation between spiritual health and physical healing, and that the theme of disease and healing is a larger one in the work than is immediately apparent. 16. Alonso Schb'kel (1988: 67) comments on this aspect of Hebrew poetics: 'Synonymy has its privileged place in the genres which are dominated by emotion: the emotion of the subject who expresses himself, or of a person whom the poet wishes to influence. It is thus found in lyric poetry or in rhetoric.' Duke (1990) argues that Chronicles employs rational modes of persuasion; indeed, he believes that much of the work can be read as an extended demonstration of the consequences of faithfulness, apostasy and repentance. At its linguistic level, however, the work must also have appealed to the emotions of the Chronicler's community, with its synonymous and repetitious language echoing their earlier religious traditions. Mason (1990) holds that the Chronicler's language and forms of address are a reflection of contemporary preaching and paraenesis; certainly it can be readily imagined how familiar turns of phrase might have been reminted to a new purpose. 17. Williamson (1982: 225-26) in particular has pointed to the programmatic significance of 2 Chron. 7.14. He notes how each of the four verbs used there to describe positive human responses to divine chastisement (Ern/Bpn; "^snn; D;D niph.; JIB) is taken up subsequently as an 'avenue of repentance' and a turning point for miraculous deliverance. This insight, which is of the first importance for the correct interpretation of the work, is developed and explored at length below.


51

also employs a parallel negative vocabulary, principally 3T^ and *?2B. The results of a study of the distribution and significance of these terms are presented below. However, before the terms are considered individually, it is useful to note the rhetorical force accorded them by their form and setting in the largely Chronistic unit of 2 Chron. 7.12b-16a: v. 12b

v. 13

v. 14

v. 15

A I have heard your prayer C|rft>s>n ns TOOT) and chosen (-mm) this place (run uipm) for myself as a house of sacrifice (rot m1?). B When I shut up the heavens (mnn) so that there is no rain, or command the locust to devour the land (pun 'TDK'?) or send plague among my people ('Din), C if my people will humble themselves ('Ofl w::n)— they who are called by my name—and pray (V^srn) and seek (iBp3'i) my face and turn (nti'i) from their evil ways, B' I will hear from heaven (D-ann p BOBK) and forgive (rfroNi) their sin and heal their land (nans rw ssi«i). A Now my eyes will be open and my ears attentive to the prayer of this place (mn nipan rbsrb). v. 16a For now I have chosen (-mm) and consecrated this house (mn mi)...

While the significance of v. 14 has been widely (if not always accurately) recognized, the emphatic chiastic form of this unit has not been commented on before. It is evident from this arrangement, with its degree of correspondence of components and repetition of key terms, that v. 14 is of central importance. It stands out as the point of reversal of circumstances, in which repentance is followed by divine restoration. 1. Positive Human Responses in Chronicles (i) erpr/tojj?a; associated motifs. These are the most frequent and characteristic of the writer's terms, occurring in a theologically significant sense thirty-two times in the Sondergut and eight times in the synoptic sections.18 Yahweh is typically the object of this verb, from which fact Begg (1982) and Duke (1990), following Schaefer (1972),19 conclude 18. D~n/op3 is found in a theologically significant sense in the Sondergut in 1 Chron. 10.13, 14; 13.3; 15.13; 21.30; 22.19; 28.9; 2 Chron. 1.5; 7.14; 11.16; 12.14; 14.3, 7; 15.2, 12, 13, 15; 16.12; 17.3, 4; 19.3; 20.3, 4; 24.22; 25.15, 20; 26.5; 30.19; 34.3; and in synoptic passages in 1 Chron. 16.10-11 (= Ps. 105.3-4); 2 Chron. 18.4, 6, 7 (= 1 Kgs 22.5, 7, 8); 34.21, 26 (= 2 Kgs 22.13, 18). 19. G. Schaefer, 'The Significance of Seeking God in the Purpose of the

52


that 'seeking Yahweh' epitomizes the theme of the work. By this expression they understand a summons to trust Yahweh and worship him exclusively according to the Mosaic and Davidic cultic institutions. This is clearly a matter of importance for the writer, but this is too narrow a description of the writer's purposes. Moreover, it can be shown that the Chronicler uses eJ~nAtip3 in more general, as well as quite specific (cult-centred), ways. Restricting our discussion to non-synoptic cases, we may identify the following principal usages: 1. 'Seeking Yahweh' is frequently used to typify commitment to Yahweh and his worship according to legitimate norms (aatOQD; cf. 1 Chron. 15.13). The contexts in which these verbs occur specify that 'seeking Yahweh' includes: a. sacrifice and prayer (1 Chron. 21.30; 2 Chron. 1.5; 11.16; 16.12); b. obedience to Yahweh's commandments (1 Chron. 22.19; 28.9; 2 Chron. 26.5); c. obedience to the Mosaic Law, probably with reference to cultic matters and reform (1 Chron. 10.13, 14; cf. 13.3; 15.13; 2 Chron. 14.3, 6 [E4, 7]; 15.2, 12, 13, 15; 17.4; 19.3; 31.21; 34.3); d. intercession (2 Chron. 20.3-4). The focus seems to be principally on faithfulness in cultic matters and does not have the old oracular sense of the expression mrr n« orn.20 Accompanying descriptions confirm that the writer's interest in legitimacy and form in worship is not externalist nor overly formal but is balanced by a concern for motivation, integrity and religious experience. Thus, for example, Jehoshaphat is commended as one who 'sought Yahweh with all his heart' (2 Chron. 22.9; cf. 31.21 on Hezekiah).21 2. Yahweh is the subject in three passages, where the expression denotes his positive (1 Chron. 28.9; 2 Chron. 14.6 [E 7], following LXX) or negative (2 Chron. 24.22) orientation toward persons. The Chronicler' (dissertation, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1972); cited in Duke 1990: 49-50. Wagner suggests from his own survey that in the end the expression 'denotes nothing other than the Chronicler's ideal of piety' (TDOT: III, 301). 20. This is found probably only in 2 Chron. 18.4, 6, 7 (= 1 Kgs 22.5, 7, 8). 21. 'Seeking Yahweh' entails an act of will (2 Chron. 11.16; 12.14; 20.33; 30.19) and presupposes faith (cf. 2 Chron. 14.7, 10 [E 11]; 32.7-8). Japhet (1989) and Braun (1986) have also remarked on the writer's emphasis on joy as evidence of his concern with interior religious experience.


53

Chronicler's predilection for reciprocal word-play for rhetorical effect is evident in these examples. 3. The special focus of the expression in 1 Chron. 22.19 and 28.9-10 is on Solomon's commission to build the temple. It functions as an exhortation to future obedience to his given task. 4. As was remarked in the introductory discussion, the expression in 2 Chron. 7.14 denotes humble repentance associated with prayer in or towards the temple. A similar sense is reflected, for example, in the account of Hezekiah's Passover (2 Chron. 30.19) and in several passages noted below. This last-mentioned meaning for ern/Dpa is not attested in the earlier chapters, and it imports a particular nuance into the usage from 2 Chronicles 6-7 onwards. While most uses signify positive, devoted commitment to Yah web. on the part of the king or community, especially as this is expressed in worship, the sense here is much closer to the summons to repentance and the assurance of divine restoration, a usage reflected in the exilic Deuteronomistic and prophetic writings. Deut. 4.29, Isa. 55.6-7, and Jer. 29.12-14 are important in this respect. In particular, the last-cited passage contains a number of expressions which recur in Chronicles.22 In using such terms the author reflects the idiom of exilic proclamation, but retrojects that language and thought into the First Temple period. Subsequent references to 'seeking Yahweh' should be understood first in the light of the meaning of the temple for the Chronicler: at its most fundamental level, it is Yahweh's channel for forgiveness and restoration. This perspective will become clearer in our discussion of the narrative which depicts the extent of sinfulness in the people and the divine provision for this state of affairs. By the same token, we find in the Chronistic motif of cult reform that 'seeking Yahweh' denotes concrete acts of repentance to restore the nation to legitimate worship.23 A correlation between 'seeking Yahweh' in this sense and obtaining success is certainly made in the work,24 which is the complementary message to the Chronicler's emphasis on Yahweh's mercy and forgiveness. 22. The influence of Jeremiah on the writer is especially apparent in 2 Chron. 36.21-22, where the seventy-year exile and the return are both in accord with his prophetic word. Cf. Jer. 29.10-14. 23. Cf. 2 Chron. 14.3, 6 [E 4, 7]; 15.2, 12, 13; 19.3; 34.3. 24. Among many examples, Solomon (1 Chron. 22.13); Asa (2 Chron. 14.6; 15.2); Uzziah (26.5).

54


The above remarks have established the main lines of the discussion; the remaining terms may be considered more summarily. (ii) ^snn. Prayer in Chronicles is an outward expression of 'seeking Yahweh'. Various terms are used to designate this activity,25 which falls into two broad categories: a penitent appeal for restoration and forgiveness according to the meaning of 'seeking' in 2 Chron. 7.14 (cf. 2 Chron. 30.18; 33.13); and a plea for help in the face of external threats (cf. 2 Chron. 13.14; 14.11; 20.5-12; 32.20).26 Prayer in this work is set within the specific relationship between Yahweh and Israel mediated by the Davidic covenant. It will be seen that this covenant has a twofold expression, the Davidic dynasty and the temple. Accordingly, David's prayers (1 Chron. 17.16-27 [= 2 Sam. 7.18-29]; 29.10-19) concentrate on these related themes, while Solomon's dedicatory prayer (2 Chron. 6.4-42 [= 1 Kgs 8.23-53]) determines the meaning of prayer in or toward the temple. The centrality of temple prayer is also underscored by two special Chronistic emphases. In 1 Kgs 8.52 Solomon pleads that Yahweh may hear Israel's supplication, basing this appeal on the exodus (v. 53). 2 Chron. 6.40 paraphrases this, but ties it instead to the temple (mn mpon rfrsn1?), and hence to the Davidic dynasty to which the temple testifies. The petition is reproduced verbatim in Yahweh's reply in 2 Chron. 7.15, reflecting the Chronicler's emphatic conviction that Yahweh hears and responds positively to the prayers of his people. This perception is demonstrated throughout 2 Chron. 10-36, where prayer is shown to be consistently efficacious. In this respect Chronicles may give the impression of having a rather rationalistic or mechanical outlook over against other Old Testament writings. However, this simplified depiction is probably dictated by the writer's paraenetical intent. Prayer in Chronicles is evidence of piety: as Japhet (1989: 255 n. 185) notes, only the righteous (or more accurately,

25. The Chronistic vocabulary of prayer includes: Vpann (2 Chron. 7.1; 32.20, 24; 33.13); put (1 Chron. 5.20; 2 Chron. 13.14; 18.31; 20.9; 32.20; each case signifies an appeal for help in a situation of military distress); rftn (2 Chron. 33.12); ^KD (1 Chron. 4.10; note also the paronomasia in 1 Chron. 10.13). 26. Wellhausen (1885: 204) argued that the invasion of the eastern coalition (2 Chron. 20) was in response to Jehoshaphat's disobedience (cf. 2 Chron. 19.2), but this claim is disputed below.


55

the penitent) are described in this work as praying.27 No doubt as part of his purpose of encouraging prayer and engendering faith, the Chronicler depicts every recourse to the authentic Mosaic and Davidic cultic forms of piety in a positive light.28 (iii) me. This verb occurs only infrequently in a theologically significant sense (2 Chron. 7.14; 15.4; 24.29; 30.6, 9; 36.13, out of 67 occurrences), but each instance corresponds to the idea of 'repentance'. The immediate source of the writer's usage is his Vorlage (1 Kgs 8.33-34 = 2 Chron. 6.24-25, from which 2 Chron. 7.14 is in part constructed), but the other examples have no parallel. The influence of the canonical prophets is probably to be discerned here: Holladay (1958: 116-17) shows that 113 of the 164 examples of rnc used in a 'covenantal' sense belong to that corpus, notably Jeremiah (48x) and Ezekiel (16x). The influence of Jeremiah on Chronicles is, of course, well known (cf. 2 Chron. 36.13, 15-16, 20-21 for specific references; as well as general echoes of Jer. 29.12-14). (iv) JHD niph. Chronicles accounts for fourteen of the eighteen examples in the Hebrew Bible where this expression denotes a penitent attitude in prayer. In this respect it is synonymous with the other terms as an expression of the Chronicler's ideal of piety. A more specific Sitz im Leben for this term has been suggested by McCarthy (1982), who maintains that 2:0 niph., tzrn, 371? and 'ran (see below) are termini technici in acts of covenant-renewal. The purpose of these acts is said to be to revalidate the cult, purifying it 'so that God can be there with his people' (1982: 32, emphasis his). McCarthy bases his claim on three cases of cult reform instigated by prophetic calls to 'seek Yahweh', which speak of entering, making or renewing a covenant (2 Chron. 15.12-13; 29.10, 20-21; 34.31-32; McCarthy fails to mention the covenant under the 'priest-king' Jehoiada, 23.16). However, his attempt to reconstruct a hypothetical ceremony as the background for this language is unconvincing. As Japhet has shown (1989: 112-15),

27. This may have some bearing on the portrayal of Abijah (2 Chron. 13), which appears to diverge from Kings; note that Judah's army (v. 14), rather than Abijah himself, is described as crying out to Yahweh. 28. In contrast, for example, to the criticisms that the pre-exilic prophets often directed at the (ostensibly orthodox) religious practices of their day.

56


these 'covenants' are better understood as binding commitments between king and people to pursue a purified Yahwism, rather than any cultic reactivation of the bond between God and people. At no point is this bond actually severed.29 IHD niph. and the related terms are more properly the language of religious paraenesis rather than specific cultic terminology. The first occurrence of an niph. in the narrative (2 Chron. 12) corresponds to the first act of repentance in the face of divine judgment, while its fourfold repetition (vv. 6, 7 [bis], 12) makes it the leitmotif of that pericope. It may also serve the rhetorical intent of echoing 2 Chron. 7.14, where this verb is the first term of the protasis. In each of its occurrences it is stated or implied that those who humble themselves may avert Yahweh's wrath (2 Chron. 12.12; 30.8, 10; 32.25, 26; 34.25, 27; note the Chronistic repetition of the verb in this verse). Underlying these examples is a sustained reflection on the meaning of the exile and return. The Chronicler's use is probably derived from Lev. 26.41-42, a passage whose influence is evident in 2 Chron. 36.21. Leviticus 26.41-42 envisages a situation of exile on account of 'PUD (v. 40; see below). It describes a transition in the exiles' condition 'when their uncircumcised heart is humbled (i^D11) and they accept [the punishment for] their guilt',30 whereupon Yahweh remembers the land and his covenant with the patriarchs. Exile, impending or actual, forms the backcloth to the section in which this expression is concentrated, 2 Chronicles 30-36 (cf. 30.11; 32.26; 33.12; 34.27). The restored community was doubtless conscious of living still with the consequences of that event (not least of which must have been the continuing diaspora and the foreign occupation of their land). Against these harsh realities, the Chronicler strove to demonstrate that these consequences could be reversed by repentance.

29. As was remarked already, m3 in Chronicles denotes primarily the Davidic covenant, through which the king, people and cult are constituted into a special relationship with Yahweh. This covenant in turn is related by the Chronicler to the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants; see further Chapter 7. Significantly, the Chronicler alters 2 Kgs 11.17a (= 2 Chron. 23.16, a passage ignored by McCarthy 1982) to make it simply into an act of solemn rededication. 30. Following Wenham's translation (1979: 332); cf. 2 Chron. 12.6 for a recognition of the people's guilt and Yahweh's justice.


57

2. Negative Human Responses in Chronicles The Chronicler also employs a distinctive parallel vocabulary to characterize apostasy and other grievous types of sin. (i) 3\3. This term, the negative counterpart of crn, occurs in a theological sense fourteen times in Chronicles, usually denoting a forsaking of Yahweh which he reciprocates by withdrawing his presence and help (cf. 1 Chron. 28.9; 2 Chron. 7.19, 22; 12.1, 5; 13.10, 11: 15.2; 21.10; 24.18, 20, 24; 29.6; 34.25). In the conclusion to the oracle to Solomon (2 Chron. 7.19-22) the expression replaces the Deuteronomistic •nnion vb. While aw is often used quite generally, a number of examples specify its cultic-religious content. Thus Rehoboam and all Israel 'forsook' Yahweh's law (2 Chron. 12.1; cf. v. 5); and Joash and the princes of Judah 'forsook' the temple for idolatry (2 Chron. 24.18; cf. 13.10-11; 29.6-7). The Chronicler's use does not depends on the Vorlage (except 2 Chron. 7.22 = 1 Kgs 9.9; 2 Chron. 34.25 = 2 Kgs 24.17) but is similar to those exilic/post-exilic texts which speak of Yahweh or his law or covenant being 'forsaken'.31 (ii) *7aa. This is the most distinctive of the Chronicler's terms for sin (1 Chron. 2.3; 5.25; 9.1; 10.13; 2 Chron. 12.2; 26.16; 28.19; 29.19; 33.19; 36.14), and is unparalleled in Samuel-Kings. The term apparently originates from the realm of sacral law, where it denotes 'trespass against sancta' (cf. Milgrom 1976a). Mosis (1973: 29-30) follows Zimmerli and Elliger in taking it as a generalizing expression in Chronicles for 'serious sin against God'. Milgrom (p. 80) holds that where the context specifies the content of "?:JQ, the term denotes a violation of the cult, including infringement of priestly prerogatives (cf. 2 Chron. 26.16, 18), but he does not discuss its wider contextual function in Chronicles. Johnstone (1986), in contrast to Mosis, universalizes rather than generalizes the sacral law idea implicit in bun. He holds that Chronicles is essentially a 'theological essay' on the theme of guilt and atonement in Israel's history. The writer is said to use ^tfQ as a 'hermeneutical key' to interpret Israel's history in the land from beginning (cf. 1 Chron. 2.3) to end (cf. 2 Chron. 36.14) as one of sacrilege and robbing God, the

31. Cf. Deut. 28.20; Judg. 2.12-13; 1 Sam. 8.8; 1 Kgs 18.18; 2 Kgs 17.6; Jer. 9.12.

58


repeated failure of the elect nation to render God his due. Leviticus 5.1426 (E 5.14-6.7) speaks discursively of baa, and describes how the law of restitution and the asham offering constitute the appropriate offering for that offence. Chronicles is seen by Johnstone as an 'aggadic midrash' on this law of restitution. The cult which is established by David is the point at which the deadly course of îra is overcome and, conversely, where the nation's life is consecrated through the presentation of the D'tznp. Johnstone's observations on these linguistic features orientate us to a significant sub-theme in the text, the question of holiness, but it is doubtful whether so uniform or thoroughgoing a schema is worked out in Chronicles. The book reflects numerous streams of tradition, including Pentateuchal, Deuteronomistic and prophetic, as well as the specifically priestly interest in sacrifice. It is certainly concerned with the matter of Israel's sinfulness (as we will see, Chronicles stresses more clearly than the Vorlage that the cult was instituted on account of this fact), but it subordinates this matter to a more comprehensive theme, that of Yahweh's kingdom, its realization and persistence.32 I will argue in Chapter 7 that the Chronicler understands the earthly manifestation of that kingdom to be a much larger entity than simply the cult and the cultic community (although these are certainly central to his thought). Further, in using the expression ^DQ, the Chronicler does not refer to the law of restitution, as an aggadic interpretation might require. Other usages of ûa would have been known to the writer from the traditions before him, especially Ezekiel, which makes repeated reference to *7JJa in contexts of national judgment and exile (cf. Ezek. 14.13; 15.8; 17.20; 18.24; 39.23, 26). However, the most likely source is Lev. 26.4041, a passage whose significance for Chronicles has already been noted. Here the meaning is focused personally on God: for the writer, Israel's whole existence is lived coram deo. Chronicles is not concerned to distinguish between the comparative validity of the form and the content of the Mosaic religion. Those who 'seek Yahweh' do so sincerely according to legitimate cultic means; those who commit "^D forsake (Vaw) him, an apostasy which is demonstrated by their recourse to idolatry and their neglect or perversion of the legitimate cult (cf. 2 Chron. 29.6).

32. Cf. Chapters 7 and 8 for a discussion of Yahweh's kingdom in Chronicles. A helpful definition of 'theme' in Old Testament narrative is offered by Clines 1978.


59

3. Lexical Terms Denoting Yahweh's Response to Repentance and Sin Up to this point, our discussion has concentrated for the most part on 2 Chron. 7.12-22, especially the Chronistic addition of vv. 12b-16a. Important as this addition is, it belongs within a larger section which, although derived from 1 Kgs 9.1-9, must also be taken as representing the writer's viewpoint. The evidence for this is found in the numerous adaptations, some minor and others more substantial, which the Chronicler has made to his Vorlage}3 2 Chron. 7.12-22 corresponds structurally and thematically to the other extended oracle of the work, 1 Chron. 17.4-14 (= 2 Sam. 7.5-16). Both oracles are concerned with the mutually related themes of the temple and the dynastic promise, but with differing emphases. The first passage concentrates on the promise to David, while the second focuses predominantly on the meaning of the temple.34 2 Chronicles 7 in its entirety may be rightly seen as the centrepiece of Chronicles, as Solomon's great prayer of dedication is answered by a theophany that evokes popular worship (vv. 1-3, no parallel), and is followed by festivities involving the whole nation (vv. 4-10). The Chronicler understands the inauguration of the temple to mark a new dispensation in Israel's history, and the significance of this event is accordingly underlined by an oracle. Although in terms of historical time thirteen years would have elapsed between the dedication of the temple and the oracle (2 Chron. 7.11; 8.1; cf. 1 Kgs 6.38-7.1; 9.10), in Chronicles (as in Kings) the two events are placed side by side to present the divine message as the direct answer to the petitions of the prayer. The connection and progression between the different units of the oracle should be noted: 1.

2. 3.

First, the chiastic insertion in 2 Chron. 7.12b-16a confirms the choice of the temple as the place where repentance is accepted and divine chastisement is reversed. Next, vv. 17-18 concern the dynastic promise, according to the Chronicler's formulation. Finally, vv. 19-22 describe the consequence of apostasy and persistent rebellion.

33. For a convenient comparison, see Bendavid 1972: 88-89. 34. The Chronicler's modifications to the Vorlage in 1 Chron. 17.4-14 are examined in Chapter 7, where it will be seen that this passage and 2 Chron. 7.12-22 together convey the central theological message of the work.

60


In their new context these last verses (which have also been slightly modified) act as a counterpoise to the first unit to indicate what will happen when no repentance is forthcoming. Selman (1994b: 342) remarks that the distinction between the salvation of v. 14 and the judgment of v. 20 is based not on the contrasting merits of the people concerned (for the same sinful people are in view), but rather on the presence or absence of repentance. It is this decisive fact, more so than the question of just recompense, which dictates the Chronicler's subsequent presentation of history. Rehoboam and the leaders of Judah humble themselves before Shemaiah's word and are granted a partial deliverance (2 Chron. 12.67). Jehoshaphat submits to Jehu's rebuke (2 Chron. 19.3) after his disastrous alliance with Ahab, and he restores the nation to Yahweh's law (vv. 4-5). Even Manasseh is rehabilitated when he entreats Yahweh's favour (2 Chron. 33.12-13). Although the writer's overall assessment of Manasseh and Rehoboam remains negative,35 he nevertheless wished to emphasize (no doubt for his own kerygmatic purpose) that even these unworthy descendants of David had been recipients of Yahweh's goodness. Conversely, even those reigns which the writer looked on favourably could come to a bad end. Asa and Uzziah are probably judged positively by the Chronicler, at least to begin with (cf. 2 Chron. 16.14; 26.5), but both failed to heed the call to repentance (2 Chron. 16.9; 26.18). The same is unambiguously true for the majority of Judah's kings, who are viewed negatively by the writer.36 Yahweh's positive response to repentance is typified in 2 Chron. 7.14 by the verbs aati, rfro, and KEH. This reply is constructed partly from the dedicatory prayer in 2 Chronicles 6 (which in turn depends on 1 Kings 8), where van and n'po are frequently found (2 Chron. 6.20, 21, 23, 25, 30, 33, 35, 39). This prayer and its reply have a much greater centrality and significance in Chronicles than in Kings. Its importance is underlined partly by allusions to the divine response at critical moments in the postSolomonic history, such as Jehoshaphat facing invasion (2 Chron. 20.9), Hezekiah's Passover (2 Chron. 30.27), and Manasseh's captivity (2 Chron. 33.13). 35. This is clear from 2 Chron. 12.14 and the intensification of Manasseh's guilt in 2 Chron. 33.3, 6. 36. See the appendix at the end of this study, which includes the motif of heeding or rejecting the prophetic word.


61

Like JJDB, the author's use of nVo is due to the Vorlage (2 Chron. 6.21 = 1 Kgs 8.30). The terra is not used after 2 Chron. 7.14, although the idea is expressed in other ways. KSI is the writer's own term, which he uses with reference to the land or the people. Brown37 argues that the usage in Chronicles reflects a 'priestly' background in its emphasis on forgiveness or the declaration of cultic purity (cf. 2 Chron. 30.20). However, as I have suggested, the meaning of the root NS~I should not be unduly limited to the 'spiritual' sense of forgiveness, and a cultic sense is also too restricted. The use in 2 Chron. 7.14 suggests relief for the land from the physical afflictions of drought, locusts or plague (cf. v. 13 and 2 Chron. 6.26-28), which is in keeping with the emphasis in 2 Chronicles 10-36 on the restoration of peace and security to the land.38 By extension, the expression 'I will heal their land' also implies the return of the exiles. The Chronicler's usage closely echoes prophetic promises of restoration such as Jer. 30.17-18 and 33.6-37, which combine the spiritual and literal senses of a penitent people who have returned both to Yahweh and to the land.39 Yahweh's response to Israel's failure to repent (v. 20) consists of 'uprooting' the people from the land and rejecting the temple. The reference to 'uprooting' should probably be understood as an allusion to the Sinaitic covenant curses for disobedience as they are recorded in Deuteronomy 28-29. That association is, of course, already latent in the Vorlage (1 Kgs 9.9), but the Chronicler makes a closer link with Deut. 29.23-27 (E 24-28) by reading in v. 20 D'neJrai, in place of ^toer ns TTom (1 Kgs 9.7). The Chronicler's sole use of this verb echoes Deut. 29.27 (E v. 28, norn).40

37. THAT, II, col. 622. 38. Although in these cases the concern is exclusively with social and political well-being. 39. Cf. also the metaphorical use of the rootssi in Jer. 8.15; 14.19; 19.11. 40. Perhaps the Deuteronomist's expression had a note of finality about it that was foreign to the Chronicler's understanding of the people in Yahweh's purposes; see Chapter 9 for a discussion of the ways in which the Chronicler develops the Deuteronomistic History from his post-exilic perspective and makes it altogether more positive. It is of note that whereas Israel is made the proverb and byword in Kings, in Chronicles this refers instead to the temple (v. 20).

62


Additionally, the covenant blessing in Deut. 28.10, 'and all the nations of the earth will see that you are called by Yahweh's name' CDJJ VD ism "fistripj mrr nti '3 psn), may be the immediate source of the description of Israel in 2 Chron. 7.14 as Drrba top: 'ntz? nato -oa. In Solomon's prayer the expression 'to be called by (Yahweh's) name' referred to the temple (2 Chron. 6.33 = 1 Kgs 8.43), but in the divine response it is applied instead to the people of Israel. The expression denotes Yahweh's ownership and possession of Israel, and echoes a number of passages in prophetic literature, especially Jeremiah.41 3. Conclusion The following preliminary conclusions have emerged from this discussion of the Chronicler's vocabulary. First, the extended oracle to Solomon in 2 Chron. 7.12-22 was seen to be of the first importance in defining the writer's principal theological terms. Although commonly called a 'vocabulary of retribution', the language of 2 Chron. 7.14 is primarily concerned with repentance and restoration, rather than strict retribution as such. The Chronistic insertion of vv. 12b-16a shows that repentance rather than merit is the deciding factor in many circumstances. Of course, in common with the whole witness of the Old Testament, Chronicles does affirm a close connection between actions and consequences, and it will be the task of the next section to describe this relationship more closely. Secondly, it has been argued from much of the language that the Chronicler's thought is derived in part from reflection on the Sinaitic covenant, so that 'reward and punishment' are in fact closely related to the blessings and curses of that covenant.42 Thirdly, the writer is strongly influenced by the language and thought of the canonical prophets, especially Jeremiah. 41. Cf. Jer. 14.9; 15.16; and frequent references to the temple and Jerusalem as being 'called by Yahweh's name'; cf. also Isa. 63.19; Amos 9.12; Dan. 9.19; Num. 6.27. 42. In this respect, Japhet is too imprecise when she argues that Chronicles reflects 'a general religious awareness' which 'entails a desire to demonstrate that divine justice is at work in the world and can be discerned throughout Israelite history' (1989: 154). Rather, the Chronicler's moral world is to be understood against the backcloth of the Sinaitic covenant, as is the case for the Deuteronomistic Historian, on whose work the Chronicler depends in the first instance.


63

Such are the literary sources for the writer's language that can be positively identified. However, it is possible, indeed likely, that a work of paraenesis such as Chronicles would also draw on a living oral tradition of preaching and edification not otherwise known to us.43

43. Mason (1990) argues that the 'addresses' of Chronicles may reflect the homiletical practices of the Second Temple period; he rejects von Rad's theory of a recognizable literary genre of 'Levitical Sermon' as lacking sufficient objective criteria, but he identifies numerous rhetorical elements in the prophetic and royal speeches that point to an oral background in contemporary preaching and exegetical practice (pp. 137-44). Mason's work also involves a comparison of the 'addresses' in Chronicles with the 'speeches' in Ezra-Nehemiah, Zech. 1-8 andMalachi (pp. 145256). An alternative view may be suggested by the work of Tangberg (1987). While Tangberg does not consider Chronicles or Ezra-Nehemiah, he does examine a wide range of pre- and post-exilic prophetic texts, including those analysed by Mason (Hag. 1.2-3; Zech. 1.2-3; Mai. 2.10-16; 3.6-12). He argues for the existence of an independent genre, the 'prophetic exhortation-speech', which consisted of two parts: (1) a call to repentance, often with the verbs izrn, 0p3 or aio, and the appeal in the imperative or vetitive form; (2) motivation, usually in the form of a promise, threat or accusation. Tangberg argues that this genre underwent a transformation in the postexilic period. 'In all the examples of the post-exilic prophets examined, the admonition to repent is connected with positive cultic demands in the service of the cultic restoration of the Jewish people. The polemic against the cult in classical prophecy is abolished and replaced by a new synthesis of cultic and prophetic piety' ('Bei samtlichen untersuchten nachexilischen Propheten verbinden sich die Mahnungen zur Umkehr mil positivem kultischen Forderungen, die im Dienste der kultischen Restauration des jiidischen Volks stehen. Die Kultpolemik der klassischen Prophetic ist aufgehoben und durch eine neue Synthese von prophetischer und kultischer Frommigkeit ersetzt worden') (1987: 148). If this interpretation of events is correct, Chronicles may echo (or indirectly witness to) a transformation in later prophetic activity. Certainly there are many affinities in language and thought between the postexilic prophetic texts examined by Tangberg and the portrayal of prophecy in Chronicles. On cultic prophecy in Chronicles, see also Petersen 1977.

Chapter 4 EXEGETICAL STUDIES (2): NARRATIVE AND CONCLUSION The structure of Chronicles is considered here according to the normally accepted divisions (1 Chron. 1-9; 10; 11-29; 2 Chron. 1-9; 10-36). The theme of reward and punishment here is generally associated with motifs or topoi in the non-synoptic sections, but the parallel passages have themselves been reworked to reflect the author's Tendenzen} I will have occasion here to refer to lexical terms not discussed in Chapter 3, as well as other rhetorical and literary features which contribute to the overall composition. The sermonic-hortatory character of Chronicles as a whole is considered in the concluding chapter. In this chapter my concern is to determine how and to what extent a doctrine of retribution has motivated changes from, or additions to, the Vorlage. 1. Retribution in the Genealogical Introduction (1 Chronicles 1-9) The narrative notes in the genealogies reflect the Chronicler's Tendenzen and anticipate the themes which will emerge in the narrative proper. Specific attention is given here to the way in which this section treats the subject of sin and punishment or piety and blessing. 1.1 Chronicles 2.3 The genealogies contain three notes about individuals which make rhetorical use of paronomasia to indicate the significance of these persons: Er, who did 'evil' (in), Achar, who 'brings trouble' (nmj:) and Jabez, born 'in pain' (ircm). 1. Older commentators often attributed minor differences to the Chronicler's supposed 'Priestly' outlook (cf. Curtis and Madsen 1910: 206 on 1 Chron. 13.14; a view qualified sharply by von Rad [1930]), but many of these differences, especially where Samuel is concerned, are now known to reflect the writer's text-type (Cross 1958; Lemke 1965; Ulrich 1978). Other differences are better taken more simply as stylistic variations (cf. Willi 1972).


65

The death notice of Er is the first example in Chronicles to state a relationship between sin and punishment. Characteristically it takes the form of direct divine intervention (inmn, following Gen. 38.7; cf. 1 Chron. 10.14). Despite this unpropitious start, Judah's line is continued, albeit reprehensibly, through Tamar (v. 4). Williamson (1982: 50) rightly refers to the 'electing grace' which tolerated this situation. 2. 1 Chronicles 2.7 The language of this note also depends on its source (Josh. 7.1), but the significance of 'WD is often overlooked by commentators. The Chronicler draws attention to the fact that at the beginning of its occupation of the land, Israel is guilty of serious sin, through Achar's disobedience.2 The allusion to the theft of the 'devoted things', which brought military disaster on the people, is specifically designated an act of ^JJQ (Josh. 7.1; 22.20). The Chronicler will constantly underline the military consequences of ûa, the culmination of which is the exile of the entire guilty community. Johnstone lays great store by this incident, which he sees as anticipating in nuce the theme of Chronicles (see above). However, this must be balanced against the other, and more important, salvific message which is interwoven with this tale of sin, the election of both Judah, whose line proves to be expansive and numerous (1 Chron. 2.3-4.23), and the Davidic house (1 Chron. 3), whose line similarly continues into the post-exilic period.3 3.1 Chronicles 4.9-10 This brief account of Jabez and his prayer is an illustration of God acting for good in the life of an individual, and the Chronistic theme of the efficacy of prayer. The themes here of territorial expansion and divine protection are also prominent concerns of the work (cf. 1 Chron. 5.2022; 2 Chron. 20.6-12). 4. 1 Chronicles 4.39-43 This note describing Simeon's westward expansion and military success is said to display some of the criteria of what Welten designates the Chronistic topos 'war report with positive outcome' ('Kriegsbericht mit

2. Chronicles probably preserves the original form of the name; cf. LXX and Syr, and the word-play already reflected in Josh. 7.26. 3. 1973: 166-72; see Chapter 7 on the significance of this theme.

66


positivem Ausgang'),4 such as the small number of warriors whose victory indicated it was achieved through God's help, and their peaceful occupation signifying 'rest'. This tribe acted in an exemplary way, observing the herem 'in the days of Hezekiah, king of Judah' and so enjoyed secure possession of the land. Mention of this ideal reforming king who trusted Yahweh for help against Judah's enemies (2 Chron. 29-32) may be an early indication to the Chronicler's readers of how the divine rewards of military success and territorial expansion may be secured. 5.1 Chronicles 5.18-22, 23-26 The author's understanding of war is also reflected in these passages which contain language and perspectives which will recur in the subsequent narrative.5 In each case a theological rationale is given for the outcome: victory through trust in Yahweh, defeat on account of apostasy from him. The leitmotif of vv. 23-26, loss of land and exile for ^JJD, forms a counterpoint with the lesson of vv. 18-22, a stylized 'Yahweh war' account.6 The writer typically makes a chronological division between periods of faithfulness and blessing, and apostasy and punishment. The theme of bun is developed from the same source as 2.7. De Vries (1989: 62) holds that the Chronicler deduced the TransJordanians' guilt from their fate, but more probably the writer inferred this (albeit indirectly) from Joshua 22. There, they are charged with ô over the erection of their illicit altar, and an explicit connection is made with Achan/Achar's sin (v. 20). While the situations described in Joshua 22 and 1 Chronicles 5 are not identical (the former is an alleged offence against the unity of the cult [cf. v. 29], rather than apostasy), a connection between the two can be inferred. The Chronicler is unexcelled in his insistence on the sole legitimacy of the Jerusalem cult (cf. 2 Chron. 13), so that anything which derogated from it indicated unfaithfulness. The key word ^Q in Josh. 22.16, 20 (and the associated term epp, vv. 18, 20) 4. See Chapter 5. On the sources of this pericope see Williamson 1982: 61-62. 5. Williamson (1982: 66-67) questions the originality of the second pericope, finding it awkward in its present place and out of keeping with the Chronicler's usual practice. On the other hand, its themes are Chronistic, and in its content and language (cf. i^DO'i) it follows the structure and explanation of Judah's exile in 2 Chron. 36.14-20. 6. Note especially the use of par and ~na, and the theme of trust leading to victory.


67

perhaps suggested just such a propensity among the Transjordanians which would issue in their exile. 6.1 Chronicles 9.la A clear parallel is made here with 5.25-26, as "7i?o leads to exile for Judah. However, the principal emphasis of this passage is on the return (vv. 2-3) and the personages through whom the restoration has begun. The message is basically a positive one, that the exile is past and a decisive new phase in the nation's history has commenced. At the centre of this description are the cultic personnel and their duties, restoring continuity with the past and testifying to the central place of the temple in the nation's life. 7. Summary These pericopae anticipate many of the recurrent themes and topoi of the narrative proper. They indicate that serious sin was a fact of Israel's existence in the land from start (1 Chron. 2.7) to finish (1 Chron. 9.1), and that this led to its dispossession as an act of divine judgment. A countervailing theme of grace emphasizes the election of Judah and the Davidic house, the expansion of territory in the land for those who are faithful, divine help in time of war, and the efficacy of prayer. All of these motifs also cohere with the outlook of the narrative proper. 2. Retribution in the Narrative (1 Chronicles 10-29, 2 Chronicles 1-36) As is discussed more fully in Chapter 7, Chronicles describes how Yahweh's kingdom (cf. 1 Chron. 17.14) is established in the earthly form of the Jerusalem cult and the Davidic dynasty, reaching its apogee in the portrayal of Solomon's realm (2 Chron. 9). 2 Chronicles 10-36 then relates the history of the post-Solomonic kingdom, ending in the fall of the state. Throughout, the narrative of Chronicles makes extensive use of the Vorlage, but it possesses a different shape and focus, since the writer has his own theological concerns and material which he fashions independently of Samuel-Kings.7 The Chronicler's interests are readily 7. Willi (1972: 66-67) argues that Chronicles is related to its Vorlage as the 'exegesis' of sacred text. In support of this he assigns the differences in Chronicles to nine categories in three groups (text-critical differences, redaction and interpretation). At the other extreme, Fishbane (1985: 381-83) denies that the Chronicler

68


apparent in a synoptic comparison of the significant units, which is used here as the main methodological approach for determining how and to what extent he has transformed his Vorlage to express his retributive doctrine. 1. Retribution in the Death of Saul (1 Chronicles 10) A synoptic comparison of this passage with its Vorlage is very straightforward: 10.1-12 = 1 Sam. 31.1-13, report of battle on Mount Gilboa and Saul's death. 10.13-14 (no par.), theological explanation of Saul's death and transfer of kingdom to David.

There are numerous small but possibly significant differences in detail in the synoptic section (cf. Bendavid 1972: 30-31). Some of these may relate to a variant text-type of Samuel used by the Chronicler (cf. Lemke 1965) or minor grammatical variations for stylistic reasons (cf. Willi 1972: 88, 90), but other differences (e.g. v. 6, 'and all [Saul's] house died together') are evidently more significant. The Chronicler's editorial comment in vv. 13-14 is, of course, of the first importance in interpreting this unit. The function of this passage in Chronicles is variously understood. Japhet (1989: 405) suggests that it is intended to give David's enthronement continuity with the past, while older views (for example, von Rad 1930: 79; Rudolph 1955: 96) stressed the contrast of characters. Mosis (1973: 17-43) and Ackroyd (1991: 313-14) argue that the pericope illustrates some of the Chronicler's principal thematic interests, and can be taken as a set-piece in how he handled and transformed his scriptural sources. According to Mosis, the writer intended a contrast between David and Saul primarily in terms of the periods they represent: Saul's reign as the paradigmatic period of defeat and exile, and David's (as 1 Chron. 13-16 shows) as the era of restoration. This approach is also supported by Williamson (1982: 92-96). By referring in v. 9 to Saul's head in the Philistine temple of Dagon (instead of his body on the walls of Beth-shan, 1 Sam. 31.10), the Chronicler depicts the reversal of the circumstances in 1 Samuel 4-6, in which Dagon is intended a synoptic-comparative reading of his work in relation to Samuel-Kings. It is argued here instead that the Chronicler interprets his Vorlage in a basically conservative way, not substantially affecting its material contents .while still creating an account that is independent in its structure and concerns; cf. Williamson 1982: 22.


69

'decapitated' in his temple before the ark (Mosis 1973: 24-26). The theme of the correct disposition towards the ark, and therewith the reversal of Israel's 'exilic' state, emerges in the following Davidic narrative. Mosis's interpretative approach to Chronicles is a strongly typological reading. On this pericope, Mosis argues from the fact that the story is presented in medias res, with the reduction of local detail from 1 Samuel 31, that it is concerned not with the historical fall of Saul's house, but with depicting a kind of 'primal model' of the possible relationships governing Yahweh, Israel and its king, and the world of nations (1973: 42).8 Saul is not presented historically but 'idealtypisch', as a type of those kings whose disobedience brings disaster upon Judah. The first difficulty with this claim is the writer's silence about Saul after 1 Chron. 26.28, in contrast to numerous statements of emulation made about various kings (positively in 2 Chron. 11.17; 22.9; 26.4; 27.2; 29.2; 34.2; negatively in 2 Chron. 21.12; 33.22; 34.2). It is true that the language of 1 Chron. 10.13-14, which reflects the Chronicler's evaluation of Saul, does recur frequently, but some of this has already been introduced (cf. 1 Chron. 2.7; 5.25; 9.1). Instead, the Saul pericope points in a different direction. First, the Chronicler adds inn to v. 6, so creating an emphatic chiasm (Williamson 1982: 93). The fourfold repetition of this word in this pericope (cf. vv. 13-14) underlines how completely the Saulide dynasty has ended. The editorial comment also signals the decisive new phase, Yahweh's transfer of the kingdom to David. Although other crises will occur, such as division, military defeat and exile, they will be of a different order, because the 'kingdom', which is Yahweh's, is to be given irrevocably to David and his descendants.9 By dehistoricizing 1 Chron. 10.12, Mosis obscures the significance of the Chronicler's criticisms in vv. 13-14a. Mosis takes these words as a general evaluation of Saul's reign, rather than a reference to the specific offences mentioned in 1 Samuel 13, 15: Saul's basic disposition was unfaithfulness ('Untreue'), which led to defeat and exile. Mosis links the expression ~IDB) vb IICK mrr -an not with any particular prophetic 8. '... ein urgeschichtliches [... ] Grundmuster; es zeigt in typisierter Reinheit eine mogliche Auspragung des Verhaltnisses der drei GroBen: 1) Jahwe-2) Israel und sein Konig-3) Volkerwelt.' 9. Cf. 1 Chron. 17.13; 2 Chron. 13.5; this point is discussed in greater detail in Chapters 7 and 8.

70


messages but the usage of Deuteronomy and Psalm 119, where 'keeping Yahweh's word' is associated with life and possessing the land (1973: 33). However, this line of interpretation overlooks the Chronicler's common practice of assuming in his readers a knowledge of the Vorlage10 (which is implied here in the reference to the medium in v. 13). Verses 13-14 are more probably dependent on 1 Sam. 13.1314, 15.26-27, which speak of Saul's disobedience and rejection and the transfer of his kingdom to David. The phrases -OD H1? and mrr ~ai ntf are derived from here, although torn and ûn are, of course, the Chronicler's own expressions. Zalewski further notes the background to this incident in the Vorlage, to which, v. 13 alludes. The prelude to the battle on Gilboa is Saul's act of necromancy (1 Sam. 28), in which Samuel's shade repeats the prophetic word rejecting Saul from kingship and foretelling the destruction of his house and the transfer of his kingdom to David (vv. 17-19). These details concur precisely with 1 Chron. 10.13-14. The Vorlage provided ample evidence of Saul's gross impiety toward Yahweh C?BD). This fact provides an important pointer toward interpretation of the work, where the fundamental concern throughout is the attitude of king and people toward Yahweh, especially as this is expressed through legitimate worship. We may now summarize the ways in which the Chronicler's understanding of retribution is reflected in this pericope. First, the editorial comment emphasizes that the outcome is Yahweh's personal action (inn-D11); cf. 1 Chron. 2.3). This is already implied in the Vorlage (cf. 1 Sam. 28.19), but Chronicles is notable for its directness and the way in which it expresses Yahweh's close superintendence over events (cf. Japhet 1989: 132-36). Secondly, the writer handles this narrative more as history than as typology or paradigm. Such examples are frequent in Chronicles, but the emphasis of this pericope lies principally in its concluding statement, that the kingdom was transferred to David. In the Chronicler's conception history is under the direction of the prophetic word.11 This theme is 10. For example, in the background to the ark narrative (1 Chron. 13.5; cf. 1 Sam. 7.1) or the allusion to Solomon's later conduct (2 Chron. 9.29; cf. 1 Kgs 11.29-30) or Hezekiah and the Babylonian envoys (2 Chron. 32.25-26; cf. 2 Kgs 20.12-19). 11. It may be said that prophecy provides the Chronicles with both his understanding of history and his basis of hope. Through prophecy Saul's dynasty is ended and David's is founded (1 Chron. 11.3), along with the temple (1 Chron. 17.3-15).


71

demonstrated, first negatively in Saul's fate, and then positively in the choice of David. The Chronistic addition in 1 Chron. 11.3 (mrv nniD "7H1DBJ T3) may be understood as linking these pericopae (cf. 1 Chron. 10.13 and 1 Sam. 13.13-14). Mosis's claim (1973: 19) that 1 Chronicles 10 is presented 'without presupposition and continuation' ('ohne Voraussetzung und ohne Fortsetzung') cannot really be sustained, all the more since Saul's background is given twice in the preceding genealogies (1 Chron. 8.29-40; 9.35-44),12 and 1 Chronicles 11 onwards immediately recounts the history of the Davidic kingdom. Thirdly, the widespread motif of prophecy strongly affects the presentation and interpretation of retribution. Japhet (1989: 176-91) has emphasized the role of the prophets as preachers of repentance and warning, which is really an expression of Yahweh's compassion (cf. 2 Chron. 36.15).13 Williamson (1982: 415) refines Japhet's observations with the remark that judgment in Chronicles (ultimately, the exile) arises less from specific sins as such than from failure to heed the prophetic word. A survey of the post-Solomonic kings confirms this observation.14 Although no prophetic speech is recorded in the Chronicler's Saul pericope, it is clear from v. 13 that Saul is condemned for his failure to keep Yahweh's word. Finally, it is well known that Chronicles stresses the duty of the king to lead the people in the establishment and maintenance of proper The prophetic word is active throughout the monarchy, and is fulfilled even in the destruction of the temple and state (2 Chron. 36.21). Cyrus's edict permitting the return is also the fulfilment of prophecy (v. 22). 12. Walters (1991) notes that Saul is the only person in the Chronicler's genealogies not to be linked with one of Jacob's twelve sons, but is linked instead with Gibeon (9.35). Walters finds a polemical note in this association: Gibeon is a city which typifies Canaanite religious and political traditions. Saul is therefore unsuitable to be king, and the future belongs to David (1991: 73-76). 13. Japhet (1989: 188) recognizes as much, but does not integrate this fact sufficiently into her overall interpretation of retribution. 14. The following examples show how punishment flows less from a specific sin than from rejection of the prophetic word: (1) Asa's decline follows his mistreatment of Hanani (2 Chron. 16.7-8); (2) punishment upon the apostate Joash and the princes comes after they ignored the prophet and the princes murdered Zechariah (2 Chron. 24.19-25); (3) Amaziah rejects prophetic counsel and so is condemned (2 Chron. 25.16-17); (4) leprosy breaks out on Uzziah only after he has angrily reacted to Azariah's command to leave the temple (2 Chron. 26.19); (5) Manasseh's captivity follows the failure to heed prophetic warnings (2 Chron. 33.10); (6) Zedekiah and the people repeatedly reject prophetic messages (2 Chron. 36.12, 16).

72


religious priorities, and judges the king according to his faithfulness in this matter. For the Chronicler, these priorities were spelled out in the Mosaic Law, which is used on several occasions as a standard for evaluating kings.15 The allusions to Saul's conduct in vv. 13-14 (and later in 1 Chron. 13.3, where he is implicitly condemned for neglect of the ark) show how signally he failed in this respect. As I have indicated already, retribution in Chronicles is covenantal in basis, and largely cultic in its centre of interest: it reflects the identity of Israel as Yahweh's people (a relationship constituted through the Sinaitic and Davidic covenants) and the obligation to express that fact in legitimate worship. Saul's failure here leads to David as the faithful representative of this ideal. 2. Retribution in the Davidic Narrative (1 Chronicles 11-29) Three sections are particularly interesting in this respect: the ark narrative (1 Chron. 13-16); David's census (1 Chron. 21); and David's disqualification and Solomon's election as temple builder (1 Chron. 22, 28). (i) 1 Chronicles 13.1-16.4: the transfer of the ark. A comparison of this unit with the Vorlage reveals the author's typical compositional methods of reordering his material and making some substantial additions, as well as smaller omissions and alterations. The structure of this section (considered synoptically) is as follows. 13.1-4 (no par.), David's consultation with the assembly of Israel to fetch the ark. 13.5-14 = 2 Sam. 6.1-11, the first abortive mission. 14.1-16 = 2 Sam. 5.11-25, David's growth in power. 14.17 (no par.), statement of David's renown. 15.1-24 (no par.), preparation of clergy for second mission. 2 Sam. 6.12a (no par.), report of blessing on Obed-Edom. 15.25-16.3 = 2 Sam. 6.12b-19, the second mission and entry into City of David.

It is thus apparent that a new narrative structure has been created and older materials have been recontextualized. The most immediate question concerns the transposition of 2 Sam. 5.11-25 into the threemonth period after the first mission. Older commentators understood the Chronicler to take this unit as a reference to secular matters which 15. Thus the Chronicler interpolates references to Torah into 2 Chron. 6.16 (cf. 1 Kgs 8.25); 14.3 (cf. 1 Kgs 15.11-13); 23.18 (cf. 2 Kgs 11.18); 35.26b (cf. 2 Kgs 23.28).


73

he subordinated to his true interest, the cult.16 However, the material in 1 Chronicles 14 manifestly concerns events that were divinely assisted. Among more recent interpretations, Mosis (1973: 59-60) holds that the writer's dominant compositional device was word-play, using fis as a catchword in 1 Chron. 13.2, 11, 14.11, 15.13, to create a narrative link between these chapters. Yahweh's 'RiB' or 'breakout' against Uzzah is surpassed by a second 'RiB', David's campaigns against the Philistines. Such (proto-midrashic) word-play certainly appealed to the writer,17 but it is already latent in the Vorlage (2 Sam. 5.20; 6.8) and of itself seems insufficient to explain the new order of the material. Mosis also argues that the Chronicler's portrayal here, as elsewhere, is typological rather than historical.18 Welten's (1979) interpretation is the inverse of Mosis's view: these chapters are said to describe the Vrzeit of the Jerusalem cult rather than prefiguring the circumstances of the post-exilic community. The Chronicler deviated from the chronology and geography of the Vorlage so as to connect David's anointing as king directly with the mission to fetch the ark (1979: 176). David is now no longer a primarily political figure, but one whose first concern is to establish the cult. In their new setting, the campaigns of 1 Chron. 14.8-16 make sense as the necessary preliminaries for providing safe passage for the ark from Kiriath-Jearim, a theme absent from 2 Samuel 6. Welten argues that the Chronicler's interest in the ark and Davidic kingship, neither of which was extant in his day, was confined to their role in the foundation of the Jerusalem cult: the ark and David's efforts to secure a 'resting place' for it provided the basis for the entry of Yahweh's TDD into the temple (cf. 2 Chron. 7.1). Welten understands the Chronicler as teaching that the ark and Davidic kingship relate to a proper contemporary understanding

16. For a survey and bibliography of earlier views, including Wellhausen, Kittel, and more recently, Wilda, see Im 1985: 70-71. 17. Cf. the writer's use of rron in 2 Chron. 18.2, 31; Williamson (1982: 279) also argues that rf£p is used as a catchword in 2 Chron. 19. 18. Cf. Mosis (1973: 80) 'David's seeking the ark and the help granted to him and Israel [prefigure] the overcoming of the pagan opponents of post-exilic Israel' ('Davids Suchen der Lade und die ihm und Israel gewahrte Hilfe [prafigurieren] die Uberwindung der heidnischen Widersacher der nachexilischen Israel'). Mosis similarly explains the reduction of geographical detail in 1 Chron. 14 as in 1 Chron. 10 as part of the work's supposed dehistoricizing paradigmatic purpose, but this is an unlikely inference.

74


of the cult and not to any messianic or 'royalist' expectation (1979: 170).19 Although Welten's interpretation takes the historical and geographical data seriously, it is too one-sided in subsuming the monarchy into the cult. Chronistic additions in 1 Chron. 14.2, 17 show that David's kingship is a theme in its own right, and one which brackets that section as its leitmotif. In the first case, 2 Sam. 5.12b (iro'jnn «ra 'm) is altered to irro^D rf?scb nKto] "3, making Hiram's acknowledgment the ground for David's recognition of divine blessing on his kingship. The same point is made in v. 17, where it appears as a consequence of David's victories over the Philistines. The advancement of David's kingship (as well as its dynastic continuance) is nevertheless closely linked with a right disposition toward the cult. This is emphasized by Im (1985: 180-81), whose explanation for the reordering of the Vorlage is followed here with some modifications. Im argues that the new position of 2 Sam. 5.11-25 is explained principally as a consequence of the writer's 'dogma of retribution', which he applied 'more scrupulously' than the Deuteronomist to the individual (1985: 80-81): [The Chronicler] wishes to show the reader in 1 Chron. 14 that Yahweh has richly compensated David's accomplishments for the ark of God in 1 Chron 13. [...] Just as he showed a typical example of negative retribution in the case of Saul in 1 Chron. 10, he now shows here in 1 Chron. 14 a typical example of positive reward in the case of David.20

This suggestion has the merit of accounting for all the material in 1 Chronicles 14 (building, progeny, military success and recognition), which are all conventional signs of reward in Chronicles (although the events in 1 Chronicles 13-14 are not really 'typical': the ark is more than 'ein Symbol des Jahwekults' [p. 73], since it betokens the temple 19. Cf. Welten 1979: 182: 'The ark marks to some extent Yahweh's path to Jerusalem, into the temple. The fact that the Chronicler gives an extensive description of the long lost ark has really to do with God's presence in the Jerusalem temple cult, which was celebrated at his time.' ('Die Lade markiert [... ] gewissermaBen den Weg Jahwes nach Jerusalem, in den Tempel. Wenn der Chronist so ausfiihrlich die Geschichte der langst verlorenen Lade darstellt, dann geht es um die Prasenz Gottes im Gottesdienst, im Tempel in Jerusalem, der zu seiner Zeit gefeiert wird.') 20. '(Der Chronist) will in 1 Chr 14 den Leser zeigen, daB Jahwe reichlich vergutet hat, was David fur die Lade Gottes in 1 Chr 13 geleistet hat. f . . . ] Wahrend er ein typisches Beispiel der negativen Vergeltung im Falle von Saul in 1 Chr 10 zeigte, zeigt er jetzt hier in 1 Chr 14 ein typisches Beispiel der positiven Vergeltung im Falle von David.'


75

to come, while the children born to David in Jerusalem [1 Chron. 14.37] are a proleptic indication of the Davidic dynasty, and not simply a conventional sign of blessing). Im's argument is an inference drawn from the narrative line and a general interpretative approach to the work. It can, however, be supported by (a) a consideration of the writer's exegetical methods, and (b) the points of contrast which the Chronicler draws between the portrayals of Saul and David. a. It is increasingly recognized that the Chronicler employed interpretative methods which represent an early form of the techniques that characterized later rabbinic exegesis.21 Of particular note is the method of semukin or 'conjunctions', which is denned thus by R. Aqiba (Sifre Num 131): 'every Scripture passage which is close to another must be interpreted with respect to it'. Other instances of exegesis by semukin have been identified elsewhere in Chronicles, making it likely that the Chronicler intended 1 Chronicles 13-14 to be read in this way.22 Here the narrative is reordered to express the theme of Yahweh's blessing upon those who 'seek' him. This theme is introduced by the Chronistic unit 1 Chron. 13.1-4, in which David summons the ^np to fetch the ark. As a result, the Vorlage is accorded a new context, and 1 Chronicles 14 now appears as the evidence of divine approval of the leitmotif of David's rule, the preoccupation to fetch the ark which leads to divine blessing on his kingdom. b. The Chronicler develops a number of contrasts between Saul and 21. It is perhaps not appropriate to term these 'midrash' given the imprecise associations of that term; cf. Porton 1981: 55-92; although the term is readily used with reference to Chronicles by Shinan and Zakovitch (1986: 257-77), and Seeligmann (1953: 150-51; 1979-80: 14-32). It should be noted in particular that Japhet (1989: 184-85) uses later rabbinical methods of interpretation to illuminate Chronicles' retributive doctrine, as she interprets it. Fishbane (1985) prefers to speak of 'innerbiblical exegesis' and 'aggadic midrash', and finds the origin of such exegesis at least as early as the exile. Shinan and Zakovitch find in Chronicles the following proto-midrashic procedures: the solving of contradictions posed by the traditum; the juxtapositioning of units (semukin); name derivations; and the avoiding of ambiguities. Fishbane (1985: 380-400) speaks of a number of 'aggadic transformations' in Chronicles, including the addition of new theological explanations, and especially the use of semukin (pp. 399-400; see below). 22. For other examples in Chronicles of exegesis by semukin, see Shinan and Zakovitch 1986: 268-69; and Fishbane 1985: 399-403 (though his interpretations here are contestable). Already Seeligmann (1953: 159) referred generally to the phenomenon with reference to Chronicles, as did Willi (1972: 219 n. 12). See the discussion of the relation between 1 Chron. 21 and 22 below.

76


David.23 Confining our attention to those changes introduced into 1 Chronicles 10 by the Chronicler, we may note David's exemplary attitude toward the ark (1 Chron. 13.3; 10.14); the growth of his house and the end of Saul's (1 Chron. 14.3-7; 10.6); and the different fates of their kingdoms (1 Chron. 14.2,17; 10.14). The Chronicler thus shows a reversal by David of Israel's sorry condition under Saul. However, the understanding of Yahweh's activity in this unit is rather different from a strict doctrine of individual retribution (that is, that piety is rewarded while disobedience is punished). It will be shown in fact that the dominant motif is blessing, in an unexpected and undeserved form. First, the Chronicler depicts the private military venture of 2 Samuel 6 as a religious act of Israel as a bnp and ascribes a divine initiative to the venture: rcnsn irrfw mrr pi (1 Chron. 13.2). Thus far, David is evidently commended. However, in the light of the mission's now pronouncedly religious character and the Chronicler's well-known concern for cultic norms, the subsequent debacle (1 Chron. 13.9-13) can only be understood as a serious criticism of David, the human instigator and overseer of the mission. This is the first indication in the work that it does not present a one-sidedly idealized portrait of David, as many commentators maintain.24 The manner in which David conducted the first mission, the transition in his emotions from joy to anger and fear (vv. 8, 11-12), and his failure to bring the ark all reflect badly on him.25 The significance for the Chronicler of this initial failure is heightened over against the Vorlage, given the greater prominence that the ark has in his narrative and the manner in which he has introduced David as a zealous promoter of the cult. Yet in 1 Chronicles 14 Yahweh exalts David's kingdom, bestowing on him buildings (v. 1), progeny (vv. 3-7), military success (vv. 8-16) and fame (v. 17). The narrative line indicates that blessing has befallen David not only because of his right attitude, but also—somewhat surprisingly—in spite of his failure to understand and respect the nature of Yahweh's holiness. This remark leads naturally to a consideration of the writer's outlook on reward and punishment. As we saw with reference to Saul, the 23. Cf. Im 1985: 82; Selraan 1994a: 155-56. 24. This was classically expressed by Wellhausen 1885: 172-82. 25. There are numerous small differences between Chronicles and Samuel (e.g. vv. 9b, lOb, 13a), but Rudolph (1955: 113) argues that these are stylistic, not substantial (contra Fishbane 1985: 394).


77

Chronicler's conception of retribution is largely cultic in orientation: the right worship of Yahweh issues in blessing, whereas apostasy leads to punishment. While the presentation of this schema throughout the work is relatively straightforward, it has deeper theological reverberations. For the author the cultic norms (whether concerning ark or temple) express Israel's status as the covenant people, and they embody a profound awareness of Yahweh's holiness. Thus, Uzziah's presumption is labelled bs>a (2 Chron. 26.16, 18), for he not only encroached on the Aaronic privilege but arrogantly sought a manifestation of Yahweh's glory.26 The same concern for Yahweh's holiness informs the narrative of 1 Chronicles 13-15, but it does not reflect simple or rigidly legalistic notions of retribution. This can be illustrated by comparing the fates of Uzzah and Obed-Edom. It is frequently noted that, whereas 2 Sam. 6.6-7 provides no explanation for Yahweh's outburst against Uzzah, the Chronicler adds his own interpretative comment in 1 Chron. 15.13: Uzzah's death arose from a breach of the Mosaic code concerning the transport of the ark by the Levites (cf. 1 Chron. 15.15; Exod. 25.12-15; Num. 4.15; 7.9). This comment has been variously estimated: negatively, as the Chronicler's falsification of history through anachronistically harmonizing his Vorlage with the Priestly Writing (thus de Wette, followed by Wellhausen); more positively (though equally unhistorical), as 'aggadic exegesis', in keeping with the writer's normative piety of how he imagined the past (Fishbane). Braun (1986: 176) offers an explicitly theological (cultic) interpretation according to his understanding of the Chronicler's outlook: While one explanation of this [sc., why the mission failed] is given in vv 9-14, derived from Samuel, a second will be found in 15.2, 13—the failure to deal with the ark in the prescribed way. The writer thus adheres consistently to the dogma of retribution: disobedience to Yahweh and his word (15.13-15) cannot go unpunished and, in the same way, failure may always be explained by disobedience.

However, it must be remarked that however valid this interpretation may be for the fate of Uzzah, it stands in some tension with the subsequent description of blessing not only on David (1 Chron. 14.1-17), but also on Obed-Edom (1 Chron. 13.14). The identity and status of this latter figure is a matter of some uncertainty. According to the most common line of interpretation, 26. Cf. Ackroyd 1973: 170.

78


reflected as far back as Josephus (Ant. 7.4), the Chronicler thought of Obed-Edom as a Levite and was therefore observing cultic propriety in placing the ark in his custody.27 The assumption arises from references to that name in Levitical connection in 1 Chron. 15.18, 21, 24; cf. also 1 Chron. 16.5, 38; 26.4-6; 2 Chron. 2S.24.28 It cannot, however, be assumed that the Chronicler thought of Obed-Edom as originally a Levite. This is evidently not the sense of 2 Sam. 6.10, where he is a Philistine, a native of Gath on whom David apparently foisted the ark 'without regard to either his feelings or his credentials' (Gordon 1986: 233). The Chronicler probably shared this same understanding of ObedEdom's origin and David's motive (Rudolph 1955: 113). In this light, the comment in 1 Chron. 13.14 (reinforced in 1 Chron. 26.5) recounting the blessing enjoyed by Obed-Edom's household is all the more noteworthy: what David may have intended for harm redounds for blessing, in which David himself participates. This is suggested by the new position of 2 Sam. 5.11-25 in 1 Chron. 14.1-16. This report of David's successes now follows directly from the report of blessing on Obed-Edom's household. In 2 Sam. 6.12a the account of the blessing on Obed-Edom forms part of the message reported to David and so provides the motive for the second mission, but in 1 Chron. 13.14 it is worked into the narrative.29 27. Cf. Ackroyd 1973: 58; Braun 1986: 175. Curtis and Madsen (1910: 125) see a deliberate tendentious change: 'This historical Philistine caretaker of the ark, a native of Gath, 2 S. 6.1 Of., is transformed by the Chronicler [... ] into a Levite of the division of the gatekeepers, v. 24, 16.38, 26.4f., and as a Korahite gatekeeper (26.1-4), he is a Kehathite.' Myers' position (1966: 103) is unclear. Williamson (1982: 116) is guarded on the Chronicler's actual understanding of Obed-Edom's original status, while also arguing for glosses over the role of his family in the cult (pp. 125-26, 130, 169-70). 28. Various explanations are given for the inconcinnities in these traditions. 1 Chron. 15.21, 16.5 refer to Obed-Edom's liturgical service, while the other verses refer to the work of gatekeepers and storekeepers. Keil [1988: 219] held that two persons of the same name were distinguished in 1 Chron. 16.38. Most commentators suggest tradition-critical reconstructions; cf. De Vries 1989: 150. 29. Im (1985: 81) comments: 'because the Chronicler places 1 Chr 14 immediately after the sentence "Yahweh blessed the house of Obed-Edom and everything that he had" (1 Chr 13.14b), he also makes 1 Chr 14 appear in the context of the thought of blessing for the ark' ('dadurch, daB der Chronist 1 Chr 14 gerade hinter den Satz "Jahwe segnete das Haus Obed-Edoms und alles, was er hatte" (1 Chr 13, 14b) setzt, la'Bt er auch 1 Chr 14 im Kontext des Segensgedankens fur die Lade erscheinen').


79

We may summarize this unit as follows. Punishment is meted out for impiety (1 Chron. 13.9-10), but the dominant motif of this unit is not retribution in the sense of strict recompense for actions. Rather it emphasizes Yahweh's initiative on Israel's behalf, and his activity of blessing those who 'seek' him, even imperfectly. Such blessing is shown to be surprising in its scope: it extends to the Philistine Obed-Edom (a fact that runs counter to the older assumptions about the Chronicler's sense of cultic propriety and ethnic-religious exclusivism), and to David, despite his failure to observe properly the cultic law. (ii) 1 Chronicles 21.1-22.1: David's census and the plague. This pericope raises numerous textual and exegetical difficulties, which bear directly on the theme of how the Chronicler conceived of retribution. It will be seen, however, that the writer is concerned above all to emphasize divine mercy and forgiveness. David is shown to be guilty of grave sin and is certainly punished. Nevertheless, Yahweh turns David's disobedience which threatened Israel with destruction into an occasion for providing lasting atonement and restoration for his people. Since Cross's work,30 it has been clear that a different recension of Samuel (as represented by 4QSama) underlay the Chronicler's account. However, the significance of this fact should not be overstated. As Dion notes, many substantial differences must still be attributed to the Chronicler (cf. 1 Chron. 21.1, 6, 12, 27, 30; 22.1). A brief synopsis of the two accounts suggests the special emphases and the climax of the Chronicler's version: 21.1 2 Sam. 24.1 21.2-6 = 2 Sam. 24.2-9

po incites David to number Israel. Yahweh incites David to number Israel. David commands Joab to conduct a census. 21.7 God smites Israel. 2 Sam. 24.10 David's heart smites him. 21.8-14 = 2 Sam. 24.1 Ob-15 David's confession and choice of punishment. 21.16 (no par.) David's vision of the angel (but cf. 2 Sam. 24.17a). 21.17-26a = 2 Sam. 24.17-25 David's second confession, erection of altar, sacrifice. 21.26b-22.1 (no par.) Yahweh answers with fire, withdraws the angel; David designates the temple site.

30. Cross 1958: 141; cf. Lemke 1965; Ulrich 1978: 156-58.

80


The first exegetical (and theological) difficulty concerns the relation of 1 Chron. 21.1 to 2 Sam. 24.1. The reference to ]Bio instead of Yahweh has often been explained as an apologetic for the deity, in line with the Chronicler's supposed developed angelology. This assumes, however, that jBio is a proper name, a usage not otherwise attested before the second century BCE (Day 1988: 128-29). The Chronicler's use is nonarticular, making 'a (human) adversary' a natural translation. Sailhamer argues that the Chronicler's Deuteronomistic sources provide the best explanation. He points out first that 1 Kgs 11.14, 23, 25 refer to '(human) adversaries' whom Yahweh in his anger (v. 9) raised up against Solomon for his disobedience, and then suggests that the Chronicler intended 1 Chron. 21.1 a as an elliptical statement expressing his (proto-midrashic) understanding of 2 Sam. 21.1, that Yahweh was punishing Israel by sending an invasion of enemies (1989: 44; cf. v. 12). This interpretation is somewhat different from Japhet, who also takes jaic in a human sense (1989: 145-49), but both agree that no dualistic or spiritual explanation for evil is being offered here.31 It is not clear that Chronicles is concerned with this aspect of theodicy, which became such an important part of later Judaism. We consider next the place of this chapter within the narrative and its presentation of David and Yahweh. Compared with the Vorlage, in which 2 Samuel 24 is part of an appendix of material (chs. 21-24) only loosely connected with the preceding chapters (Gordon 1986: 298-99), 1 Chronicles 21 has a central place, standing between David's wars of conquest (1 Chron. 18-20) and his temple preparations (1 Chron. 2229), into which it immediately leads (22.1-2). It has also been seen to act as a narrative turning point in much the same way that the account of David's sin with Bathsheba does in 2 Samuel 11-12. Johnstone describes its function thus (1986: 123): It is the guilt of David himself, the king and cult-founder, which determines the selection [of the temple site]. As David's adultery with Bathsheba is the hinge of the presentation of the reign of David in 2 Samuel (2 Sam. llf.), so David's census [...] is the pivot of the presentation of [him] in 1 Chronicles. 31. However, contrast Selman 1994a: 202-204. For a discussion of other views, cf. Rothstein and Hanel 1927: 379, 384; von Rad 1930: 8; Kittel 1902: 80; McKenzie 1985: 67. Willi (1972: 155-56; cf. Williamson 1982: 143) takes a mediating position, while Schenker (1982: 72) argues that the role of the adversary in Zechariah and Job is fundamentally different from 1 Chron. 21.1.


81

Selman (1994a: 201) independently supports this claim with a number of verbal and thematic correspondences which he identifies between the Bathsheba narrative and this pericope: (i) David's confession 'nstan (2 Sam. 12.13; 24.10 = 1 Chron. 21.8), which is a turning point in both narratives; (ii) David's sin, which brings death to Israel (2 Sam. 11.17-26; 12.15-19; 24.15 = 1 Chron. 21.14); (iii) the prophetic rebuke (2 Sam. 12.1-4; 24.11-14 = 1 Chron. 21.9-13); (iv) divine punishment effected through the sword (2 Sam. 12.10; 1 Chron. 21.12, 16, 27); and (v) prophetic declarations of forgiveness (2 Sam. 12.13; 24.16 = 1 Chron. 21.15). Since most of these parallels were already present in the Vorlage, it is hard to assess this claim. Only the references to the sword in vv. 12, 27 (and 30) are not paralleled in 2 Samuel 24.32 It is, however, possible that the Chronicler was thinking of the Bathsheba narrative when he developed this motif. 2 Sam. 24.1 gives no clear explanation for Yahweh's anger, but the preceding chapter concludes with a list of David's warriors (2 Sam. 23.24-39 = 1 Chron. 11.26-41), ending with mention of Uriah the Hittite. The Chronicler may have deduced an associative link (semuk) here with 2 Sam. 24. la, just as he spells out the implicit significance of that passage for designating the future temple site. I would add the further observation that 2 Sam. 11.27 expresses Yahweh's displeasure with the remark that 'the thing that David had done was evil in Yahweh's eyes' (mrr Tin in rroiJ TDK -mn jm). This is closely paralleled by the addition in 1 Chron. 21.7a 'this thing was evil in God's eyes' (mn -otn ^s DTTTN Tin jm). The Chronicler does not specify why this census was so sinful (as opposed to the others he draws on elsewhere; cf. Johnson 1988: 62-68), but probably he saw David's act as a usurpation of Yahweh's prerogatives. In slight additions to the Vorlage in vv. 3 and 17 the Chronicler affirms that the people are Yahweh's, and so David's actions in numbering them must appear presumptuous and self-seeking. This census (in contrast, for example, to those in Exod. 30.12 and Num. 1.2, 26.2, which are sacral and commanded by Yahweh) lacked authorization and legitimacy. Moreover, it was apparently for a military purpose (cf. vv. 2, 5), and betrayed lack of trust in Yahweh who had so far acted as Israel's commander in war.33 32. Although the equivalent of v. 16 was probably present in the Chronicler's recension; cf. Ulrich 1978: 156. 33. Becker 1986: 85; cf. 1 Chron. 18.13.

82


The Chronicler heightens David's culpability over against the Vorlage (contra Rudolph) through a number of additional comments and changes. In v. 3 Joab charges David with bringing 'guilt upon Israel' (^tnto-1? naEK^). Other uses of the root nffl« appear with ^sp (or synonyms) to denote grave acts which incur God's wrath on his people (2 Chron. 19.10 [2x]; 28.10-11, 13 [3x]; cf. 24.18; 33.23). In v. 6 the Chronicler adds the remark that 'the king's command was repulsive to Joab', and, as noted above, in v. 7 that it was 'evil in God's eyes, so that he smote (-pi) Israel'. This is a reference to the plague of v. 14, and so the sense is quite different from 2 Sam. 24.10, where it is stated that 'David was conscience-stricken (T» in ±> ~p) after he had numbered the people'. It appears that David does not accept full responsibility for his act until v. 17, where his confession is more complete and accentuated than in 2 Sam. 24.17. The choice of punishments with which David is confronted (v. 12; cf. 2 Sam. 24.13) has a covenantal basis in the curses of Lev. 26.25-26. These verses speak of Yahweh bringing a sword upon Israel for covenant-violation and mention plague, defeat by enemies and famine. It may be that the Chronicler has assimilated his text to reflect the language and imagery of this passage, particularly since Leviticus 26.4041 is an influential passage elsewhere in Chronicles (cf. 2 Chron. 36.21; see above on ^n and i?]3 niph.). The description of the angel as 'destroying' (rrne?a, vv. 12, 15) also evokes Exod. 12.23, and indicates the extreme danger into which David's sin had plunged the nation. Sin and its deserved judgment are thus an important interest of this chapter. The matter is expressed most poignantly in the case of David, the exemplary Yahweh-worshipper who had reversed the destructive consequences of Saul's disobedience (1 Chron. 13-16). Nevertheless, the Chronicler's fundamental concern here is not with punishment as such (vv. 9-14), but with stressing Yahweh's mercy and forgiveness (vv. 1527). Already in v. 13, in a small addition to the Vorlage David declares that Yahweh's mercy is 'very (IKD) great'. This conviction is demonstrated in v. 15, where Yahweh withholds his punishment of Jerusalem; and in vv. 18-27, in the provision in the city of a new altar for the atonement of this offence, the way to Gibeon being barred (vv. 29-30). The climax of this unit is David's designation of Oman's threshing floor as the future temple site (1 Chron. 22.1, no parallel). This association may already be implied in 2 Samuel 24 (von Rad 1962: 318; Gordon 1986: 317), but the Chronicler makes the link explicit and emphasizes


83

that the temple is to be the place of atonement and forgiveness for Israel's sin (2 Chron. 7.12b, 14), just as this site was for David. This point is further underlined by the parallel fire-theophanies on the altars of burnt-offering (1 Chron. 21.26b; 2 Chron. 7.1). Thus, in making this incident, the nadir of his Davidic narrative, the turning point of his presentation, the Chronicler affirms that the forgiveness of sins is integral to the meaning of the temple and the Davidic covenant, through which the temple is established (1 Chron. 17.12). Yahweh's covenant mercy (1 Chron. 17.13) is the fundamental conviction against which the Chronicler's doctrine of sin, punishment and forgiveness must be assessed. (iii) 1 Chronicles 22, 28: David's disqualification from temple building and Solomon's commissioning. These two chapters belong to a transitional unit (1 Chron. 22-29) which leads immediately from the designation of the temple site to David's preparations (1 Chron. 22.2-3) and Solomon's accession as king (1 Chron. 29.22b) and fulfilment of the task (2 Chron. 1-8). There is no real equivalent to this unit in the Vorlage, although it presupposes the account of David's charge to Solomon in 1 Kgs 2.1-12 (cf. 1 Chron. 22.13 and 1 Kgs 2.3). The basic model, however, is Moses' charge to Joshua, entrusting him with the task of possessing the land (cf. Deut. 31.7-8; Josh. 1.6-7). 1 Chronicles 22 and 28 have numerous thematic and verbal correspondences,34 as David summons his son to his appointed task within the covenant, first privately and then before all the leaders of Israel. These chapters bracket David's cultic preparations (1 Chron. 23-27) and act as a bridge between the accounts of the census (1 Chron. 21.1-22.1) and Solomon's commissioning and accession (1 Chron. 28.10-29.30). The parallels between these chapters may be summarized as follows: 22.2-5/28.2 22.3/28.8 22.9/28.6 22.10/28.7 22.11-13/28.9-10

David's preparations. David is forbidden to build. Solomon is chosen to build. Dynastic promise to David. Exhortation to Solomon.

The question of reward and punishment appears to be reflected in David's exclusion from the task and the promise of success that will attend Solomon's obedience. 34. Cf. Braun 1976; Williamson 1976.

84


a. Chronicles diverges markedly in 1 Chron. 22.8 and 28.3 from the Vorlage, which relates David's failure to build as merely circumstantial: he was too preoccupied in wars to undertake this task (1 Kgs 5.17 [E 5.3]). In Chronicles David's failure to build is attributed additionally to Yahweh's express refusal: You have shed much blood (HDBO i-b m) and waged great wars: you shall not build a house to my name, because you have shed so much blood before me on the earth; [... ] you are a warrior and have shed blood.

Commentators are divided in taking these words in an ethical or nonethical (e.g. ritual or literary) sense. Rudolph (1955: 151) and Fishbane (1985: 397) find in them a moral censure of warfare.35 However, this reading is anachronistic and out of keeping with the Chronicler's own portrayal of God's activity in warfare on behalf of Israel, which is shown to be in close conjunction with religious ceremonial and in answer to prayer (Williamson 1982: 154). Among non-ethical interpretations, Mosis (1973: 96-97) holds that David's disqualification reflects the Chronicler's periodization of history: David's reign is the time of war, whereas Solomon's era is the time of rest and peace. The ritual interpretation is derived from the statement that David shed blood 'H1?, thus bringing his action into the sacral realm. Goettsberger (1939: 163) suggests that the Chronicler reflects a religious psychology and concern for purity in which 'warfare and shedding blood make one unfit for work that brings one into close relation to God'.36 The expression nxiR is also difficult; perhaps an allusion is intended to Num. 35.33, where bloodguiltiness pollutes the land. In any case, the notion that war as such renders persons ritually unfit is not otherwise attested in the Old Testament. The above interpretations implicitly assume that m -[StD and nianba ntca are synonymous expressions. However, the first expression is not used anywhere in the Old Testament to denote warfare. This has been demonstrated by H. Christ's exhaustive study of m in the Old Testament,37 which distinguishes two 35. For rabbinical antecedents to this view, cf. Japhet 1989: 476-77. 36. '(D)as Kriegshandwerk und BlutvergieBen als solches [machen] ungeeignet zu einem Werke, das in enge Beziehung zu Gott brachte. Das liegt in dem "vor mir", das die Doppelung V.8e nachtragt.' 37. Christ (1977) finds it 'odd' ('merkwiirdig') that 'shedding blood' is never used as a description for killing in warfare, and suggests that 1 Chron. 22.8 forms


85

senses of m -[so. The first concerns priestly-sacrificial rites which describe participation in, rather than exclusion from the cult.38 The second and larger group refers not to killing in war but to unlawful acts which cause death and incur bloodguiltiness. Especially in Jeremiah and Ezekiel m ~[<sa is used as a terminus technicus for Israel's sin, including violence toward the weak, which incurred the wrath of exile.39 Since David's disqualification comes immediately after the unlawful census which brought death to great numbers in Israel (1 Chron. 21.14), that culpable act is probably intended by the expression 'shedding much blood' before Yahweh. The accounts of his sin and disbarment from building appear adjacently as 'conjunctions' or mutually interpretative semukin (cf. the contrasting theme of blessing upon David in the semukin to do with the ark narrative in 1 Chron. 13-14). 1 Chron. 22.8 and 28.3 thus recount not one but two reasons for David's exclusion from temple building: the guilt he incurred before God through the census, and the factual grounds given in the Vorlage that he was preoccupied in waging war. This interpretation construes these verses grammatically in the same way as the mediaeval commentator Qimhi (as a twofold reason, not synonymously), but without the reference to Uriah which he inferred from 'shedding blood'.40 The charge of 'shedding much blood' occurs twice in 1 Chron. 22.8, which may suggest that the Chronicler considered this the principal reason for David's disqualification. b. David's exclusion from the task leads directly to the designation of Solomon as heir and temple-builder. The Chronicler's retributive thought is expressed particularly in the key phrases in 1 Chron. 22.11-13 and 28.8-9, which belong respectively to the private and public commissionings. In the first passage David prays for Solomon and admonishes him thus: Now, my son, may Yahweh be with you, and may you have success (nrtem) and build the house of Yahweh your God, as he said about you. the sole exception (p. 148). However, his judgment appears to be based on the common understanding of that passage as referring exclusively to warfare. 38. Exod. 29.12; Lev. 4.7, 18, 25, 30, 34; Deut. 12.16, 24, 27; 15.23. 39. Jer. 7.6; 22.3, 7; Ezek. 16.38; 18.10; 22.3, 4, 6, 9, 12, 27; 23.45; 36.1; cf. also Gen. 9.6; 37.22; Lev. 17.4; Num. 35.33; Deut. 19.10; 1 Sam. 25.31; 1 Kgs 2.31; Pss. 79.3; 106.38; Prov. 6.17; Isa. 59.7, 8; Lam. 4.13. 40. Cf. Japhet 1989: 476-77.

86

Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles Only, may Yahweh give you discretion and understanding when he puts you in command of Israel, so that you may keep the law of Yahweh your God. Then you will have success (rrtsn) if you are careful to observe the decrees and laws which Yahweh commanded Moses for Israel.

These words express the Chronicler's conviction that 'success' and even obedience itself depend on Yahweh's presence and help.41 'Success' (Vn^) is connected directly with obedience to the Mosaic Law, and so has its basis in the blessings of the Sinaitic covenant, while Solomon's election and commission depend on the Davidic covenant (cf. vv. 8-9), to which he must be similarly obedient. The root rbl is repeatedly used in Chronistic passages in the subsequent narrative to characterize the results of 'seeking' Yahweh (or his commandments).42 The second passage contains charges to the leaders of Israel (v. 8), and to Solomon, in the hearing of all the people (vv. 9-10). In the first case it is stressed that possession of the land depends on keeping Yahweh's commandments. Solomon is then exhorted to 'acknowledge' God and serve him with heart and mind, since Yahweh 'seeks' (Bin) every heart and understands every desire. This phrase combines the senses of scrutiny of motive and Yahweh's positive orientation to Solomon, which anticipates his own response of 'seeking'. The principle of retribution is then succinctly stated in reciprocal language that will be echoed throughout the narrative (cf. 2 Chron. 15.2): If you seek him (isrnn), he will be found by you; but if you forsake him Oman), he will cast you off for ever.

It must be noted, of course, that 'seeking (Yahweh)' here does not have the overtone of repentance that 'seek my face' carries in 2 Chron. 7.14. Further, while the second colon expresses the justice of Yahweh's acts (cf. 2 Chron. 12.5-6), the whole phrase really functions as paraenesis, assuring Solomon that Yahweh will respond positively to his obedience, and warning him of the consequences of disobedience. (iv) Retributive doctrine in 1 Chronicles 11-29: a summary. The Chronicler's Davidic narrative is marked by contrasting episodes of faithfulness and growing success, and disobedience and judgment. Nevertheless, in spite of David's failures, it is shown that Yahweh has 41. Cf. 1 Chron. 29.14, 16, 18-19; 2 Chron. 13.10, 12. 42. Cf. 1 Chron. 29.23; 2 Chron. 7.11; 13.12; 14.6 [E 7]; 20.20; 24.20; 31.21; 32.30.


87

greatly blessed him and, indeed, has turned these failures to David's and Israel's benefit, first by greatly exalting David's kingdom (1 Chron. 14.2-3) and then by revealing the temple site, where henceforth atonement may be made for Israel's sin (1 Chron. 22.1). These facts must significantly qualify the conventional understanding of the Chronicler's retributive doctrine. The writer is less concerned to demonstrate strict relationships between acts and consequences than to emphasize Yahweh's benevolence and mercy towards his people. It appears, however, that David's exclusion from temple building is due in part to his sinful act, a thought which is additional to the Vorlage and probably of greater weight in the Chronicler's eyes than David's military preoccupations. Solomon's response to his commission is also of critical importance for the benefit which he and the nation may derive from 'seeking' Yahweh and his commandments. 3. Retribution in the Solomonic Narrative (2 Chronicles 1-9) This theme is reflected positively in this section in the form of the blessings that accrue to Solomon's kingdom following the organization of its religious life; in the special portrayal of Solomon; and in the presentation of the temple as the place of prayer, restoration and forgiveness. (i) The structure of 2 Chronicles 1-9. By comparison with 1 Kings 111, the Chronicler's Solomonic narrative is a simplified account in which all its parts are related to some extent to the temple. A great deal of material in the Vorlage that reflects both negatively and positively on Solomon is omitted, as the Chronicler moves directly to his theme of illustrating the fulfilment of Solomon's commission, and the abiding significance of the temple for Israel's life.43 2 Chronicles 1-9 are properly a continuation of the Davidic narrative, without a thematic break: what David began, Solomon completes. Nevertheless, these chapters also possess their own unity from their large-scale chiastic structure and other internal literary patterns.44 Among the different arrangements of the material that have been suggested,45 Selman 43. The Chronicler's omissions include 1 Kgs 1-2, Solomon's accession and triumph over Adonijah; 3.16^.34, his secular wisdom and administration; 7.1-12, the construction of his palace; 11.1-40, his polygamy, apostasy and opponents. 44. See Selman 1994b: 286-87 for a description of these patterns. 45. Dillard 1987: 5-7; De Vries 1989: 233; Duke 1990: 65. Dillard's intricate

88


(1994b: 285-86) provides the most satisfactory analysis. He finds the following correspondences of parts: A

A

1.1-17 Solomon's wisdom, wealth and fame. B 1.18-2.17 Solomon prepares for the temple. C 3.1-5.1 Construction of the temple. C 5.2-7.22 Dedication of the temple. B 8.1-16 Solomon completes the temple and other building works. 8.17-9.28 Solomon's wisdom, wealth and fame.

This analysis is confirmed by the editorial markers in 2 Chron. 1.18 (E 2.1), 3.1, 5.1, 7.11 and 8.16 which are mainly the Chronicler's own work and denote significant stages in the narrative. This arrangement reveals the focal interest of this unit as the construction and dedication of the temple. The sections that bracket the narrative (A and A') are also closely tied to the theme of the temple. The account of Solomon's wealth in 1 Kgs 10.26-29 has been transposed into 2 Chron. 1.14-17, to indicate that God has kept his promise of wealth (v. 12), which would have been used partly in temple-building. Similarly, God's gift of 'wisdom and knowledge' (v. 12) has temple-building primarily in mind, as Hiram's remark, considerably expanded over 1 Kgs 5.7, indicates: Yahweh has given David 'a wise son, endowed with discretion and understanding, who will build a house for Yahweh and a house for his kingdom' (2 Chron. 2.lib [E 12b], no parallel). Solomon's palace is associated with the temple throughout this narrative (cf. 2 Chron. 1.18 [E 2.1]; 7.11; 8.1, 11), probably as a symbol of the Davidic dynasty that is jointly established with the temple, in fulfilment of the Davidic covenant (cf. Selman 1994b: 298). The definitive statement in 2 Chron. 8.16 marks the successful accomplishment of Solomon's task. Significantly, the 'completion of Yahweh's house' is related to other tasks detailed within 2 Chron. 8.116, including building works within the realm (vv. 1-6) and the organization of Gentiles in the kingdom (vv. 7-11). These 'secular' works, in fact, follow construction of the temple (v. 1), but are considered to be in the temple service 'because they made the land and people perfect for holiness' (De Vries 1989: 269). This work is crowned by the institution of the regular services (vv. 12-15), for the Chronicler considers the analysis has been frequently cited, but Selman (1994b: 287) points out that his arrangement lacks a proper chiastic correspondence of parts.


89

temple 'completed' only with the inauguration of the cult. Indeed, the writer's interest in the temple has to do with its function within the life of the nation, especially as this is performed by the Levites, rather than the details of its design and construction.46 The completion of the temple-building is followed by the accounts of Solomon's trading ventures with Hiram (8.17-18) and the visit of the queen of Sheba (9.1-2). This section is introduced by the temporal marker ts (no parallel; cf. 8.12), implying that the superlative wealth and esteem of Solomon's kingdom are to be understood as the consequence of his faithfulness in establishing the correct religious priorities for the nation (Williamson 1982: 233). In this way, the narrative line suggests much the same message as that conveyed by the exaltation of David's kingdom after his (albeit abortive) mission to fetch the ark (1 Chron. 1314). More so, the Chronicler intends this section to be read explicitly as the fulfilment to Solomon of the divine promise of wisdom, wealth and honour (2 Chron. 1.12; Selman 1994b: 294). This is confirmed by the repeated mention of these blessings (wisdom in 2 Chron. 9.2-8, 22-23; riches passim in the description; international renown in 2 Chron. 9.1, 5). The queen of Sheba affirms that Yahweh is the source of Solomon's exaltation, and has so acted out of his love for Israel: Because your God loved Israel Cansr ns jnb« nania) and would establish them for ever, he has made you king over them (2 Chron. 9.8b).

This remark is closely paralleled by (and is probably the source of) the words attributed to Hiram at the start of the project: 'Because Yahweh loves his people (102 n« mrr ranta) he has made you king over them' (2 Chron. 2.10b [E 1 Ib], no parallel in the Vorlage).

The temple-building is thus bracketed by the declarations of two Gentile monarchs, affirming that Solomon's reign is an expression of Yahweh's covenantal commitment to Israel.47 (ii) The presentation of Solomon. It is frequently held that the Chronicler has idealized Solomon and his reign as a paragon of faithfulness.48 This 46. Thus 1 Kings devotes 46 verses to the account of the temple construction and 31 to its furnishings, whereas Chronicles' figures for the same are 17 and 23. 47. On 3ns as a covenantal term see Thompson 1979. 48. Cf. Wellhausen 1885: 184-85; Curtis and Madsen 1910: 313; Rudolph 1955: 135, 225-26; Mosis 1973: 162; Braun 1973; 1986: xxxii-xxxv; Dillard 1980; Japhet 1993: 48.

90


claim (as with the similar one frequently made for David) is based largely on the omission of materials from the Vorlage that reflect negatively on him. Especially important here is 1 Kgs 11.1-40, the account of Solomon's foreign wives and later apostasy, his failings which, according to the Deuteronomist, led to the division of the kingdom. In fact, the Chronicler has a more nuanced appreciation of Solomon's character and role than the conventional understanding allows. The omission (in detail) of critical materials is not intended as 'Solomonic apologetic' (contra Braun). Rather it is the Chronicler's means of concentrating on what he sees as the lasting significance of Solomon's reign, the fulfilment of the Davidic covenant through the building of the temple and the establishment of the Davidic dynasty.49 Consequently, other materials, including those which reflect positively on Solomon,50 are omitted as extraneous to the writer's purpose. The Chronicler does depict Solomon at the start of his reign as acting in an exemplary, faithful manner. His first act to be described in detail, the journey to Gibeon to offer worship (2 Chron. 1.2-13), is modelled on David's mission to fetch the ark (1 Chron. 13.1-6) and is treated as an orthodox and zealous act of 'seeking Yahweh' (or the Mosaic altar, v. 5), in which 'all Israel' is involved. This is in marked contrast to the implied criticism of Solomon's religious practices in 1 Kgs 3.2-3. The act of 'seeking' leads directly to a divine appearance 'in that night' (v. 7), in which God grants him the wisdom needed for his responsibilities as king (v. 12). The rest of the narrative treats his reign positively, omitting mention of the corvee of Israelites under Adoniram (1 Kgs 5.13-14) and placing his dealings with Hiram over the Galilean towns in a favourable light (2 Chron. 8.2; cf. 1 Kgs 9.11-14). The apogee of Solomon's reign is described in 2 Chron. 9.22-28, a passage which largely parallels 1 Kgs 10.23-29. The Chronicler's Solomonic narrative breaks off here, while the Deuteronomist goes on to recount the king's later apostasy and military opposition (1 Kgs 11.1-40). Thus far, the view would appear justified that the Chronicler has idealized Solomon, and various reasons have been proposed for such a presentation.51 However, the Chronicler is not really concerned to conceal or deny Solomon's failings.52 In his concluding note to this section 49. 50. 51. 52.

See further Chapter 7 on the fulfilment of the Davidic covenant. 1 Kgs 3.16-4.34; 7.1-12; 9.15-17. Cf. Mosis 1973: 162-68; Braun 1973; Williamson 1983. Nor, properly speaking, his difficulties in establishing his reign. It is now


91

the writer refers to the rest of Solomon's acts 'from first to last', which are recorded in 'the words of Nathan the prophet and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite and the visions of Iddo the seer concerning Jeroboam the son of Nebat' (2 Chron. 9.29b, no parallel). Mention of Ahijah implies that the Chronicler's readers will be familiar with the account of Solomon's apostasy (cf. 1 Kgs 11.29-30).53 Similarly, although the Chronicler does not directly mention Solomon's oppressive policy toward his fellow Israelites, criticism of the corvee is clearly reflected in 2 Chron. 10.4, 9-11, 14-15 (= 1 Kgs 12.4, 9-11, 14-15), without any attempt to suppress this detail. Readers of Chronicles are thus expected to know the narrative of 1 Kings 1-11, which concentrates much more on the details of Solomon's personal and political life. These facts are alluded to, but hardly emphasized, because the Chronicler treats Solomon as faithful in the all-important task of templebuilding, which instituted a new phase in Israel's life. The Chronicler does not contradict his Vorlage, but rather concentrates on its essential meaning for his community. In other words, the writer's interest in Solomon is really centred on what Yahweh has accomplished through him and for his people, rather than on the more ambivalent figure of history.54 (iii) The speeches in the centre of the chiasm (2 Chronicles 6-7). Within the chiastic arrangement of 2 Chron. 1-9, Solomon's dedicatory address and prayer (2 Chron. 6.1-42) and Yahweh's word to him (2 Chron. 7.12-22) are the centre of thematic interest and theological significance. generally recognized that 2 Chron. 1.1 (prnrri) contains an allusion to 1 Kgs 1-2, while 2 Chron. 8.2 (Solomon's receipt of cities from Hiram) does not contradict 1 Kgs 9.10-14 (cf. Williamson 1982: 193, 228). 53. Japhet (1993: 646) rejects the suggestion that 2 Chron. 9.29b is intended as an allusion to Kings because she thinks it doubtful that the Chronicler 'would direct his readers to the very material he had intentionally avoided'. But this presupposes a specific view of the writer's intention, and Japhet agrees that there is little or no evidence that sources other than 1 Kgs 1-11 were used in 2 Chron. 1-9. 54. Interestingly, the Chronicler omits the offer to Solomon of a long life, conditional on his obedience to Yahweh's statutes and commandments (1 Kgs 3.14). This verse was perhaps irrelevant for the Chronicler's interest in 2 Chron. 1 in emphasizing the promise of wisdom, wealth and honour (cf. vv. 11-12), and the writer duly records Solomon's forty-year reign (2 Chron. 9.30 = 1 Kgs 11.42). The omission may, however, reflect a recognition of Solomon's failings. The motif of a long life is not common in Chronicles, but it is used of David (1 Chron. 29.28) and Jehoiada (2 Chron. 24.15), possibly as an indication of reward.

92


These chapters are arranged according to a pattern of request and response, and are of the first importance in defining the meaning of the temple for the Chronicler and his community. Solomon's speech is adopted for the most part without significant alteration from 1 Kgs 8.12-50a. In the first part it testifies to the fulfilment of Yahweh's promise to David, in the form of Solomon's accession and successful temple-building (2 Chron. 6.4, 10 = 1 Kgs 8.15, 20; cf. 1 Chron. 17.10-14; 22.10; 28.5-6). Yahweh's covenant faithfulness (vv. 14-15) is thus the basis of the following prayer, which asks first, for a continuing fulfilment of the dynastic promise (vv. 16-17), and secondly, that Yahweh would be attentive to temple prayer (vv. 22-40). A range of situations is described, most of which presuppose judgment for sin and request that repentance may secure forgiveness and restoration. The Chronicler is content here simply to reproduce his Vorlage, which was germane to his purpose, as he has shown that the temple has its origin both in Yahweh's will (1 Chron. 17.12) and in Israel's need for forgiveness, exemplified above all by David (cf. 1 Chron. 21.18; 22.1). The form and tradition-historical background to the language of 2 Chron. 7.12-22 were discussed in greater detail above, where it was noted that the Chronistic addition of vv. 12b-16a describes the consequences of sacrifice and penitent prayer in the temple, whereas vv. 1922 depict the results of persistent disobedience. A comparison with the Vorlage underlines the significance of this addition. 1 Kgs 8.56-61 (no parallel), the conclusion to Solomon's prayer, and 9.3-9, the divine reply, are essentially a summons to obedience to Yahweh's commandments, couched in typically Deuteronomistic language. This concern is readily appreciated, especially if these passages reflect traditional pre-exilic materials. 55 The Chronistic version, on the other hand, differs significantly in emphasis. In common with other post-exilic writings, Chronicles recognizes that Israel is a sinful people that has experienced judgment (1 Chron. 5.25-26; 9.1; 2 Chron. 36.16). Accordingly, the temple is presented as the point of reversal for Israel's circumstances, where sacrifice and prayer may secure forgiveness and restoration. The fact of punishment is not denied (vv. 19-22), but this takes second place to a stress on Yahweh's offer of mercy. Henceforth, it is affirmed (v. 12) that Yahweh will communicate his loving purpose for his people through the temple. 55. See further Chapter 9 on these verses.


93

This last point is plainly addressed to the Chronicler's own community. The presence of the second temple in the restored community (as well as the fact of the return itself) signals the continuity of the divine promises made in vv, 12-16, since both community and temple stand in continuity with the pre-exilic period (1 Chron. 9.2-34; 2 Chron. 36.2223). The temple is not a talisman (cf. v. 20) but an incentive to expectant prayer and praise. (iv) Retribution in 2 Chronicles 1-9: a summary. 2 Chronicles 1-9 is concerned with the public (and abiding) significance of Solomon's reign for Israel. As in the portrayal of David,56 matters of a personal or secular nature are passed over, not from an apologetic motive but to allow the writer to concentrate on his central interest, Solomon's fulfilment of his commission. Everything is subordinated to this theme, and it appears that Solomon is rewarded not only for his faithful disposition but also, to some extent, despite his failings. This reflects a recognition of Yahweh's goodness to the inconsistent and undeserving. The message of Yahweh's mercy is highlighted in 2 Chronicles 6-7, where it is shown to be integral to the meaning of the temple and the Davidic covenant. It thus forms the basis for the following narrative (2 Chron. 10-36). 4. Retribution in the Post-Solomonic Narrative (2 Chronicles 10-36) Most discussion of retribution in Chronicles has, understandably, focused on this section, where the stereotypical language and motifs of reward and punishment are particularly evident. Dillard (1987: 76) reflects the consensus view of these chapters when he asserts that they are governed by a 'theology of immediate retribution' which is said to provide the writer's 'dominant compositional technique' for his history of postschism Judah. Dillard offers the following definition: 'Retribution theology' refers to the author's apparent conviction that reward and punishment are not deferred, but rather follow immediately on the heels of precipitating events. For the Chronicler sin always brings judgment and disaster, while obedience and righteousness yield the fruit of peace and prosperity.

It will be recalled as well that the Chronicler's retributive thought is also commonly seen as 'individual', that is, limited in its scope to the individual or generation concerned, so that notions of cumulative guilt and 56. Cf. the Chronicler's omission of 2 Sam. 9, 11-20.

94


deferment of punishment are excluded by definition.57 Whether these judgments accurately reflect the outlook of 2 Chronicles 10-36 must be determined by a study of the way in which the theme of reward and punishment is articulated in these chapters. My discussion of this section has more of a summary character than that of the preceding chapters, partly because the theme of retribution here is a repetitive one which has been rehearsed in earlier studies (particularly in summarizing discussions of motifs and causality; cf. Wellhausen 1885; Braun 1979; Japhet 1989), but, more importantly, because the basic features of the Chronicler's theology have already been established by the conclusion of the Solomonic narrative. It therefore seemed more appropriate in this study to place the primary emphasis on the narratives of Saul, David and Solomon, as the context for understanding 2 Chronicles 10-36. A synoptic comparison of this section with 1 Kings 12-2 Kings 25 indicates that the Chronicler's account of the post-Solomonic kingdom is largely self-contained, possessing its own structure and theological concerns over against the Vorlage. This result is due largely to the Chronicler's compositional methods, of which the most important are: 1. 2.

3.

the omission of materials dealing exclusively with the northern kingdom; the insertion into the Vorlage of periodizing chronological notices, theological rationales, stereotypical motifs of blessing and punishment, and prophetic speeches; and the addition of entire pericopae or the wholesale rewriting of passages.58

Further evidence of the work's theological design is found in the high degree of patterning of reigns, especially in comparative and contrastive groups. Much of this is achieved through the use of catchwords, especially the vocabulary of 2 Chron. 7.14, and common themes. The result 57. Cf. von Rad 1930: 13; 1962: 349; North 1963: 373; Braun 1986: xxxix; Dillard 1987: 80; Japhet 1989: 164-65. 58. Although the Chronicler omits all material from Kings which deals exclusively with the north, he recounts all the contacts between north and south. The additional periodizing chronological notices, retributive motifs and prophetic speeches are found in 2 Chron. 12.1, 2b, 3-9a, 12-14; 15.19-16.la, 7-10, 12, 13b-14; 18.1-2, 31b; 20.33b, 37; 21.2-4; 22.1, 4b; 24.3-5; 25.5-16; 27.2b-6; 28.23-25; 32.22-23, 27-30; 33.11-17, 23; 34.3-7, 27b, 32-33; 35.21-25; while much larger additions to, or rewriting of the Vorlage, are found in 2 Chron. 11.5-23; 13.3-21; 14.3-15.15; 17.1-19; 19.1-20.30; 21.11-20; 24.15-22; 26.5-20; 28.8-15; 29-32; 35.16-17; 36).


95

of this patterning is a series of basically discrete sub-units which are used by the Chronicler to highlight the different types of behaviour displayed by Judah's kings toward a range of subjects, including: the cultic requirements of the covenant (reform and the upkeep of the temple), the theme of exclusive trust in Yahweh, repentance, obedience to the prophetic word, and the status of the northern tribes. The presentation is quite different from 1-2 Kings, not least because no material relating to the north in its own right is retained, while the accounts of some reigns have been expanded considerably. Moreover, the Chronicler appears to present a significantlyy ddifferent evaluation of certain reigns over against Kings. It is this fact above all that has given rise to the most comment on—and criticism of—the author's presentation, and so will require a careful weighing of the evidence. The following overview of 2 Chronicles 10-36 considers the literary and narratological ways through which the writer's concerns are conveyed, paying particular attention to the basis of reward and punishment in each pericope. (i) 2 Chronicles 10-12, Rehoboam. Rehoboam's reign is judged negatively by Kings as a time of apostasy (1 Kgs 14.22-24). Several commentators59 have asserted that the Chronicler took a contrary view of Rehoboam, chiefly because of the blessings that attended his reign, but this is refuted by the evaluation in 2 Chron. 12.14. The author depicts Rehoboam instead as an unworthy ruler who nevertheless received Yahweh's blessings and exhibited repentance at the critical moment. Rehoboam's foolishness leads to the division of the kingdom (2 Chron. 10.1-19), but he heeds Shemaiah's word to desist from the attempt to restore the north by force (2 Chron. 11.2-4). The Chronistic insertion in 2 Chron. 11.5-23 next describes blessings in the conventional form of buildings and fortifications (vv. 5-12) and a large family (vv. 18-23). These boons were evidently not confined to the three-year period when Rehoboam's realm obeyed the Law and the land enjoyed security (v. 17); in fact, no precise chronological connection is stated in this unit.60 In the consolidation of his rule, Rehoboam receives help from the priests and Levites from the north (vv. 13-17), but, significantly, nothing

59. Cf. Wellhausen 1885: 209; Curtis and Madsen 1910: 362-63; Welten 1973: 127; more moderately, Dillard 1987: 94. 60. Contra Dillard 1987: 95.

96


is said about his own piety. Rather, 2 Chron. 12.14 condemns him as one who 'did not set his heart to seek Yahweh'. The account of Rehoboam's and 'all Israel's' apostasy in 2 Chronicles 12 has been heavily shaped by the language of 2 Chron. 7.14 (cf. vv. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 12, 14). The Chronicler's theological rationale for Shishak's invasion is a deduction from the sequence of 1 Kgs 14.22-25. Judah's apostasy is an act of bwa which threatens to dispossess the people because of Yahweh's wrath (v. 7). However, the judgment is mitigated by repentance (DD niph.) in response to Yahweh's prophet (vv. 5, 7). The whole effect of this presentation is not to depict Rehoboam in a manner contrary to the Vorlage but to highlight Yahweh's mercy and faithfulness to the covenant promises of 2 Chron. 7.14. It depicts blessings on the undeserving and effectual repentance in the face of just chastisement. (ii) 2 Chronicles 13-16, Abijah and Asa. These accounts are united by the theme of reliance (Vpti) on Yahweh (2 Chron. 13.18; 14.11; 16.7 [x2], 8; cf. Allen 1988: 29). Under Abijah, Judah's reliance on Yahweh leads to victory over Israel and Jeroboam, while Asa shows a conflicting attitude, relying first on Yahweh and then on the king of Aram. The Chronicler's depiction of Abijah has also given rise to the charge that he has deviated from the critical assessment of 1 Kgs 15.3.61 In reply, it must be said again that while Abijah is victorious in war and receives a large family, both conventional signs of blessing, the Chronicler is reticent about the king's own piety, as Deboys (1990: 5152) observes. While Abijah is not criticized, neither is he personally commended in the manner of evidently faithful kings.62 The writer also preserves indirect evidence of Abijah's failings in the details of the reforms carried out by his successor (2 Chron. 14.2-4 [E 3-5]; 15.8, 1617). Dillard's statement (1987: 110), then, that the Chronicler 'has presented us with a prophet king, a preacher of righteousness' is somewhat exaggerated. Rather the point of 2 Chronicles 13 is to stress the greater reality of Yahweh's kingdom in Judah (vv. 5, 8), which has a twofold expression in the Davidic dynasty and the Jerusalem temple. Whatever his personal worthiness, Abijah is the legitimate Davidide under whom 61. Cf. Wellhausen 1885: 193; Curtis and Madsen 1910: 373-74; Welten 1973: 127; Dillard 1987: 104-105. 62. Contrast Asa (2 Chron. 14.1 [E 2]); Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 17.4, 6; 19.3; 22.9); Jotham (2 Chron. 27.2); Hezekiah (2 Chron. 29.2).


97

the cult is conducted as the Law prescribes (vv. 10-11), in contrast to the rebel Jeroboam and his apostate practices (vv. 6, 9). Abijah's reign is described only briefly and ambivalently in 1 Kgs 15.1-8, where it is stressed that he is the recipient of Yahweh's promise of a 'lamp in Jerusalem' (v. 4). Perhaps this image prompted the reference to the lamps in 2 Chron. 13.11. Chronicles does not contradict Kings but emphasizes instead the presence of Yahweh's kingdom among sinners and the (corporate) loyalty of Judah to Yahweh's law, which leads to success (v. 18). The Chronicler's Asa narrative (2 Chron. 14-16) is more complex and considerably expanded over against its Vorlage (1 Kgs 15.9-24). However, it can be divided essentially into contrasting periods of fidelity and unfaithfulness, with corresponding consequences. The turning point in this pericope is the note in 2 Chron. 15.19 that 'there was no war until the thirty-fifth year of Asa's reign'. Up to this point the king has acted in an exemplary way, promoting reform and compelling Judah to 'seek' Yahweh (cf. 2 Chron. 14.3, 6 [E 4, 7]; 15.1, 4, 12, 13). This programme is supported by the prophetic word (2 Chron. 15.1-7) and leads to rest and security for the land. Baasha's attack (2 Chron. 16.1) is certainly not an instance of divine punishment, no more than Zerah's (2 Chron. 14.8 [E 9]), but rather an opportunity to express faith in Yahweh's power to save. However, Asa completely reverses his former pattern of behaviour, making an alliance with Benhadad (2 Chron. 16.26), where previously he had relied on Yahweh. He rejects Hanani's word (contrast 2 Chron. 15.8) and mistreats him, together with some of the people (vv. 7-10), and in his last days 'has recourse to mediums'63 rather than to Yahweh (contrast 2 Chron. 14.3 [E 4]). It is usually held that the Chronicler has inserted the Hanani episode to provide a theological rationale for Asa's illness. This is possible, although it is not expressly stated that the illness is punishment, in contrast to the writer's practice in 2 Chron. 21.18-19; 26.20. The Chronicler is more interested in placing Asa's persecution of Hanani (whatever the origin of this information) into a larger pattern of declension from previous faithfulness. Nevertheless, the description of the special honours at his funeral (2 Chron. 16.14) denotes a generally positive assessment of Asa.

63. See De Vries 1989: 304 for the suggestion that D'KSi denotes 'mediums' rather than 'physicians'. The Chronicler's point, at any rate, is that Asa did not recognize Yahweh as his 'healer' (cf. 2 Chron. 7.14; Exod. 15.26).

98


(iii) 2 Chronicles 17-20, Jehoshaphat. Jehoshaphat plays a much more extensive and important role in Chronicles than in Kings, where his reign is described only briefly (1 Kgs 22.41-50) and he is a secondary figure compared to Ahab (cf. 1 Kgs 22.1-38; 2 Kgs 3.4-27). The structure and theological outlook of 2 Chronicles 17-20 have been variously analysed.64 On the whole, the composition is rather loose and paratactic,65 consisting of a series of tableaux showing contrasting attitudes of fidelity of Yahweh and his Law, and compromising involvement with Yahweh's enemies. The prophetic word (2 Chron. 18.16-22; 19.2-3; 20.37) and the consequences of these actions are the main ways in which the Chronicler's retributive thought is expressed here. At the same time, there is a strong emphasis on the availability of repentance. The structure follows the pattern of juxtaposing passages of Sondergut with material from Kings: 17.1-19 Jehoshaphat 'seeks' Yahweh and appoints Levites to teach the Law, leading to peace, tribute, buildings and an extensive army. 18.1-2 Jehoshaphat has riches and honour (cf. 17.5), yet forms a marriage alliance with Ahab and is enticed into battle. 18.3-34 = 1 Kgs 22.4-35 Disastrous campaign in Ramoth-gilead in defiance of Micaiah's word. 18.3Ib (no parallel): Yahweh rescues Jehoshaphat in battle. 19.1-20.30 Jehu's condemnation; Jehoshaphat's legal reform; his prayer and deliverance from enemies. 20.31-21.1 = 1 Kgs 22.42-50 Concluding note. Failed alliance with Ahaziah. 20.37 (no parallel): Eliezer's rebuke.

The new introduction sets the Ramoth-gilead episode in a more reprehensible light. In 1 Kings 22 Jehoshaphat appears as the junior partner in the alliance, whereas in Chronicles it is emphasized that he possesses divinely accorded wealth and status (2 Chron. 17.5; 18.1) 'because he sought the God of his father and walked in his commandments and not according to the practice of Israel' (2 Chron. 17.4). Despite Jehoshaphat's disobedience in subsequently allying himself with Israel, he receives divine mercy at the critical moment, as his cry for help in battle is interpreted as a prayer and God reverses the effect of Ahab's 64. Cf. Williamson 1982: 277-80, who emphasizes thematic contrasts; Dillard 1987: 129-30, who argues unconvincingly that it is paralleled with Asa's reign; Knoppers 1991; Striibind 1991: 103-104. 65. Cf. Knoppers 1991.


99

enticement (DTPO*!, v. 31; cf. v. 2). Jehoshaphat then responds rightly to Jehu's prophetic admonishment (2 Chron. 19.2-11). In the following episode (2 Chron. 20.1-30) the king and people display exemplary trust in Yahweh in the face of the invading coalition, and so enjoy total victory. The Jehoshaphat narrative concludes, however, with a further example of how alliance with Yahweh's enemies leads to disaster (2 Chron. 20.35-37). This last episode detracts from the preceding climax, and is an ominous indicator of Jehoshaphat's legacy: it will be related next how his marriage alliance with Ahab will bring his own house to the brink of destruction (2 Chron. 21-23; see below). In each section of this narrative, it is clear that Jehoshaphat's and Judah's fortunes are directly related to the way in which they express their covenantal status as Yahweh's people. Concern for the Law (2 Chron. 17, 19) and the right use of the temple (2 Chron. 20) are presented as the road to blessing, but involvement with the idolatrous northern kingdom (2 Chron. 18; 20.35-37) brings ruin. Even so, repentance always remains possible to mitigate or cancel the effects of disobedience, so that fidelity and sin are hardly equivalent forces (2 Chron. 18.31b; 19.4-5). It is of interest in this context to mention Striibind's monograph (1991), which uses the Jehoshaphat narrative as a paradigm for investigating the writer's hermeneutics and theology (pp. 103-206). Striibind underestimates the degree to which the Chronicler condemns Jehoshaphat's behaviour in 2 Chronicles 18-19,66 but drawing especially on the motif of repentance in this pericope, he concludes (as I have argued from the evidence marshalled in this chapter) that 'the assumption that Chronicles reflects a supposedly radical "dogma of retribution" represents a misunderstanding' of the work's intention (p. 170).67 Further light on the Chronicler's view is shed by Jehoshaphat's temple prayer in 2 Chron. 20.3-12 in the face of invasion. There is no hint in this prayer of a confession of wrongdoing, nor any perception that the invasion is divine judgment. On the contrary, it is treated as unjustified act (v. 12). Striibind again comments pertinently (p. 182), 'The threatened catastrophe is not based upon a failure of the people or the king. This fact again illustrates how problematic is the assumption of a 66. 1991: 171: 'Jehoshaphat's declension from Yahweh... is treated as a "mere slip'" ('Josaphats Abfall von Jahwe wird... zum "Lapsus" bagatellisiert'). 67. 'Die Annahme eines vermeintlich radikalen chronistischen "Vergeltungsdogmas" stellt ein MiBverstandnis dar.'

100


Chronistic "dogma of retribution'".68 It is equally foreign to the Chronicler's intention to treat every misfortune as evidence of judgment, as it is to take divine blessing as evidence simpliciter of piety in individuals (contra Japhet 1989: 167). (iv) 2 Chronicles 21-23, Jehoram, Ahaziah; Athaliah 's interregnum. These chapters constitute a unit in which the Davidic House is nearly annihilated as a result of Jehoshaphat's marriage alliance with Ahab. While this section provides graphic illustration of divine punishment of evil, paradoxically it is also used by the Chronicler to emphasize Yahweh's covenant mercy to the dynasty.69 The account of Jehoram's reign (2 Chron. 21.1b-20) is considerably expanded beyond 2 Kgs 8.16-24 and magnifies his evil character. This is readily appreciated from the following synoptic comparison: 21.1b-4 (no parallel) Jehoram's accession and murder of his brothers. 21.5-10a = 2 Kgs 8.17-22 Jehoram's imitation of the ways of the House of Ahab. Yahweh's promise to David (contrast v. 7 and 2 Kgs 8.19); Libnah and Edom revolt. 21.10b-20a (no par.) Theological rationale for loss of land. Jehoram's deepening apostasy; Elijah's condemnation; Jehoram's fatal disease and loss of family. 2 Kgs 8.23-24 Burial notice (contrast 2 Chron. 21.20b, Jehoram not buried in the tomb of the kings).

Thus Jehoram, a relatively colourless figure in the Vorlage, is forcefully depicted as an apostate fratricide whose exceptional punishment is merited. On the other hand, the Chronicler's account of Ahaziah (2 Chron. 22.1-9) is told more summarily, although with expansionary comments on the influence of evil counsel (vv. 3b, 4b, 5b). The writer's interest in this figure is seen from the perspective of Jehu's divine commission to destroy the House of Ahab (v. 7b): although a Davidide, Ahaziah is also related to the northern house by blood and imitation of its ways, and (in vv. 5-7) by deliberate association. He therefore shares in its divine condemnation. 68. 'Die drohende Katastrophe ist nicht in einer Verfehlung des Volkes oder des Konigs begriindet. Diese Tatsache zeigt erneut, wie problematisch die Annahme eines chronistischen "Vergeltungsdogma" ist.' 69. See further Chapter 7 below on the 'schema of dynastic endangerment' in these chapters.


101

In the following account of Athaliah's coup and Jehoiada's countermeasures (2 Chron. 22.10-23.21), the writer emphasizes Yahweh's faithfulness to the Davidic covenant. This results in the restoration of both legitimate ruler and legitimate worship (cf. 2 Chron. 23.3b, 18-19, no parallel), which together represent the Chronicler's conception of the theocracy.70 (v) 2 Chronicles 24-26, Joash, Amaziah, Uzziah. The Chronicler has added theological rationales (2 Chron. 24.25b; 25.20b, 27a; 26.5) and narrative insertions (2 Chron. 24.15-22; 25.5-16; 26.16-20) to make these reigns conform to the common theme of beginning in (comparative) faithfulness and blessing but ending in apostasy and punishment. 71 This pattern has already been seen in the case of Asa (2 Chron. 14-16), but here the motifs of unfaithfulness and hostility toward prophets are intensified. Joash's positive period is confined to 'the days of Jehoiada the priest' (2 Chron. 24.2). This is followed by his abandoning the temple for idolatry, rejecting prophetic warnings, and complicity in the murder of the prophet Zechariah (vv. 18-22). Joash's own fate, a severe wounding at the hands of the Aramaeans and then his 'slaying' (innm) as a result of a conspiracy (v. 25), is evidently intended as fitting recompense for his treatment of Zechariah, who was himself the object of a conspiracy and 'slain' (rim) by stoning (vv. 22-23). Amaziah is not really presented as an exemplary figure in the first part of his reign (cf. 2 Chron. 25.2b, 6, 9), but he does pay heed to the man of God who urges him to dismiss his mercenaries (vv. 7-8), and as a result Amaziah receives a great victory (vv. 11-12). However, out of hubris he forsakes Yahweh for the powerless gods of Edom and rejects prophetic counsel for evil advice (vv. 14-17). In typical word-play the Chronicler underlines the fitting punishment that will befall Amaziah: because he has rejected the counsel of Yahweh's prophet Crcsu1?), God has determined (fir) to destroy him (cf. also v. 27). Pride also brings about Uzziah's downfall, after an unquestionably positive start (2 Chron. 26.4-15). His encroachment upon the temple to offer incense evokes the memory of Korah's rebellion before the tabernacle, where Yahweh's glory appeared (Num. 16.18-19), and was intended to seek a similar manifestation of the glory (v. 19b). Uzziah's 70. See further Chapter 8 on the relation of king to cult and high priest. 71. Cf. Allen 1988: 33.

102


sin is compounded by his angry defiance of the priests' warning (vv. 1819), whereupon he is stricken with leprosy.72 With Uzziah, the course of ^ya once again appears in Judah's history (vv. 16, 18) and will recur to the end of the work (cf. 2 Chron. 28.19, 22; 29.6, 19; 30.7; 33.19; 36.14). Grave as these kings' offences are, it is clear that divine punishment befalls them only once they have repudiated a prophetic (or priestly) warning. Their fate again illustrates the fact that punishment in Chronicles is not automatic or consecutive upon offending, but rather arises from the failure to avail oneself of the opportunity to repent (cf. 2 Chron. 7.19-22). (vi) 2 Chronicles 27-32, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah. Both Dillard (1987: 80-81) and Japhet (1989: 161) refer to Ezekiel 18 as teaching a doctrine of strict individual responsibility and retribution and suggest that it underwrites the Chronicler's thought. While such a view probably does not reflect the meaning of Ezekiel 18,73 the pattern in which a righteous man (Jotham) has an unrighteous son (Ahaz), who is succeeded by a righteous son (Hezekiah) is the sequence used in Ezek. 18.5-20, as Dillard (1987: 216) recognizes, and this thought at least probably underlies the writer's treatment of these reigns. Jotham's reign (2 Chron. 27.1-9) is depicted in wholly positive terms, and the nation prospers from his obedience (vv. 4-6). By contrast, Ahaz's reign (2 Chron. 28.1-7, 16-17) is unrelievedly negative: his idolatry (heightened over against the Vorlage; cf. vv. 2-3) leads to defeat and exile for large numbers of the population (vv. 5-7). This portrayal (which is quite different from the impression of 2 Kgs 16.5, where Rezin and Pekah attack, but without success) culminates in Ahaz's suspension of the cult and promotion of idolatry through Judah (vv. 24-25, no parallel). Ahaz's reign, then, represents the nadir of the monarchy prior to the exile. The point of this drastic portrayal is to create a foil for his successor, his righteous son Hezekiah. The writer's lengthy account of this reign (2 Chron. 29-32) is overwhelmingly positive. It has a quite 72. The style of this passage may be influenced by Num. 16.46-50. 73. Cf. Joyce 1979; Hals 1989: 118-27. Hals's interpretation of the disputation in Ezek. 18, that it does not propound one theory of responsibility in place of another but is rather a summons to repentance, is also a fair reflection of the Chronicler's outlook.


103

different focus from Kings, concentrating on Hezekiah's religious reforms rather than the political matters of the Assyrian invasion and the Babylonian envoys that interested the Deuteronomistic writer (cf. 2 Kgs 18.8-19.37; 20.1-19). Both incidents are severely abridged and confined to the latter part of Hezekiah's career (2 Chron. 32), whereas prior and extensive attention is given in 2 Chronicles 29-31 to showing how Hezekiah reversed the results of Ahaz's apostasy (and, to some extent, the original schism74). Thus the temple is rededicated (2 Chron. 29.3-36), Israelites from both north and south are summoned to a passover (2 Chron. 30.1-27), and the ideal round of worship and obedience is restored (2 Chron. 31.1-21). Parallels with the thought and language of 2 Chron. 7.14 are particularly evident in the account of the passover (cf. 2 Chron. 30.6, 9, 19-20, 27), where the writer points to the temple worship as the way ahead to reunification of the people and restoration from the effects of exile. The description is thus a demonstration of the efficacy of repentance focused on the temple, as Yahweh had promised Solomon. Furthermore, the Chronicler has modelled his portrayal of Hezekiah's reign on that of the united reign of David and Solomon.75 It follows, therefore, that just as these kings experienced blessing on their realm when they had established proper religious priorities for the nation (1 Chron. 14.2-3; 2 Chron. 8.17-18), so too does Hezekiah. Accordingly, his 'acts of faithfulness' (2 Chron. 32.1) are rewarded by victory over Sennacherib and renown in the sight of the nations (vv. 21-23). The one shadow in this portrayal is the compressed account in 2 Chron. 32.24-31, a terse description of Hezekiah's illness and recovery, his wealth, and the visit of the Babylonian envoys. This passage implies that the reader is familiar with 2 Kgs 20.1-19. There, Hezekiah's proud bearing and display of wealth before the envoys (2 Kgs 20.13-15; cf. 2 Chron. 32.27-29) was understood as contributing to the fall of the kingdom (2 Kgs 20.16-19). The Chronicler does not contradict this view, but stresses instead that Hezekiah's and the people's self-humbling forestalled Yahweh's wrath from Jerusalem (2 Chron. 32.26). As De Vries (1989: 395) observes, a new element now emerges in the narrative (and indeed has been intimated already in 74. Williamson 1977a: 119-31. Williamson's view that the Chronicler's Hezekiah depicts a pre-exilic reunification in principle is challenged by Knoppers (1990). 75. See Throntveit 1988 for details.

104


2 Chronicles 28, where the shadow of exile has been cast and will become progressively longer). Judgment for Judah's sin may be delayed but now appears inevitable. (vii) 2 Chronicles 33-35, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah. The unifying theme of this section is the consequences of humble repentance.76 Substantial additions have been made to these chapters (2 Chron. 32.11-17, 19; 33.23; 34.3, 27b; 35.1-17, 21-25), which recast them significantly over against Kings. Thematically, the most interesting of these is the emphatic use of IHD niph. as a catchword. Manasseh 'humbled himself in exile (2 Chron. 33.12, 19) and was restored to the land, which also received blessings (vv. 14-16). The point of this presentation77 is to highlight Yahweh's faithfulness to the covenant promise of restoration (2 Chron. 7.14), and his goodness even to the most notorious of sinners; as Lowery remarks (1991: 188), '(Manasseh's) restoration and prosperity is proof of God's surprising willingness to bless even those who must repent of serious sins. His cult reform shows the righteous action which follows true repentance.' By contrast, Amon 'did not humble himself before Yahweh as Manasseh his father had humbled himself (v. 23) but instead increased the guilt (noEfc) that incurred Yahweh's wrath. The addition of this verse sets up a rhetorical contrast between these reigns (and generations), whereas in 2 Kings 21 Manasseh and Amon are essentially paralleled. The events of Josiah's reign (2 Chron. 34-35) are reordered and expanded from the Vorlage to convey the writer's own emphases. The discovery of the book of the law (2 Chron. 34.8-14), which is a turning point in Kings, is instead presented as the last stage of a process which began with Josiah's early piety and reform (vv. 3-7), and thus is a consequence of 'seeking' God (v. 3). Josiah's exemplary response to the commandments of the law book is underscored by the repetition of the root sm in Huldah's prophecy in 2 Chron. 34.27. Because of his obedience in promoting reform, he will be spared seeing the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem.78 This news is a stimulus to further reform 76. Cf. Selman 1994b: 517-18. 77. See further Chapter 9 on the Chronicler's portrayal of Manasseh. 78. Nevertheless, Josiah dies in battle, having refused to 'listen to the words of Neco from the mouth of God' (2 Chron. 35.22). The Chronicler's account of Josiah's death has given rise to a debate whether this report was already in his version of Kings or is his own composition; contrast Begg 1987a and Williamson 1982b; 1987a.


105

(2 Chron. 34.29-35.19), and although Judah's fate is sealed, the Chronicler once more points to repentance and the right use of the temple as the means of restoration from the consequences of exile (cf. 2 Chron. 30.6-9). (viii) 2 Chronicles 36, Judah 's last four kings. The final chapter is severely abridged from the Vorlage as the history of Judah seemingly accelerates to its inevitable judgment. The last kings are treated very summarily, with the elimination of much personal information about them, and are typologically linked by the experience of exile, actual or implied. The history of ûn now reaches its climax in the description of Zedekiah's generation, where the Chronicler breaks off from his Vorlage to offer his own theological explanation for the destruction and exile. The effect is very different from the factual account in 2 Kgs 25.122. The Chronicler emphasizes instead the grave sinfulness of Zedekiah and the populace (bra ^wcb innn, v. 14), and their refusal to repent: vv. 12-16 reflect the language of 2 Chron. 7.14, but in the negative. Accordingly, the deserved judgment of 2 Chron. 7.19-22 finally befalls the temple and nation. Nevertheless, as part of a pattern of surprising reversals that marks the writer's presentation, the concluding note of the work, Cyrus's summons to return and rebuild (vv. 22-23), is a clear indication of hope and restoration. Before the results of this study are summarized, two features of 2 Chronicles 10-36 call for brief comment. The first is the use of stereotypical motifs of reward and punishment. These are remarked on by Braun (1979: 53-55), who notes that 'apart from those additions to his work directly related to the cult, it is difficult to find an addition which the Chronicler has made to his Vorlage which does not function in these terms'. The second question concerns the Chronistic burial notices. Special honours are reported of Asa (2 Chron. 16.14) and Hezekiah (2 Chron. 32.33), while it is expressly stated of Jehoram (2 Chron. 21.20), Joash (2 Chron. 24.25) and Ahaz (2 Chron. 28.27) that they were not buried 'in the tombs of the kings'. It was noted in Chapter 2 that this feature has been interpreted as a reflex of the writer's supposed 'earth-bound retributionism' ,79 This is quite doubtful, since the Chronicler nowhere plainly addresses the question of post-mortem retribution.80 It is clear, 79. North 1963; cf. von Rad 1962: 350. 80. Although, interestingly, Ackroyd (1987: 176-80) suggests that the portrayal

106


however, that the burial notices do express the writer's theological verdict on particular reigns. 3. Summary and Conclusion It has long been agreed that a concern with divine reward and punishment is central to the Chronicler's work, but this fact has rarely redounded to the writer's credit, whether as theologian or historian. Our study of the Chronicler's special vocabulary and the narrative units that give expression to his retributive doctrine lead us instead to a substantially different appraisal of the writer's thought and intention. It appears that insufficient attention has been paid in the course of research to the Chronicler's basic theological convictions, and that the literary form of his presentation has been insufficiently appreciated. For these reasons I have sought in these chapters to define more exactly the significance of the central divine address in 2 Chron. 7.12-22, and to view each narrative unit in its own terms. The following results have emerged from this study. The theme of reward and punishment in Chronicles has its meaning not within a general theory of divine action in history but specifically as part of the covenantal relationship between Yahweh, 'the God of Israel',81 and his people. The thought and language of such passages as Deut. 28.10-11 and Lev. 26.40-41 appear to underlie the writer's usage (cf. 2 Chron. 7.14, 20; 34.24) and suggest as a traditio-historical setting the blessings and curses of the Sinaitic covenant as they are represented in the Pentateuch. The Chronicler develops this idea by showing that the Sinaitic (and for that matter, the Abrahamic) covenant underlie the Davidic covenant, which carries with it its own (temple-orientated) promises of forgiveness and restoration. The Sinaitic and Davidic covenants are in fact more closely related to each other in the Chronicler's view than the usual approach to this question, which tends to see the former covenant displaced by the latter in the Chronicler's outlook, has hitherto allowed.82 It seems better to speak of the Davidic covenant as consolidating and culminating what was earlier achieved of the death of Hezekiah in 2 Chron. 32.33 hints in this direction. 81. An epithet found thirty-three times in Chronicles; cf. Japhet 1989: 19. 82. Japhet presents the most extreme interpretation of this view, according to which the Chronicler effectively denies the significance of the exodus and Sinai, in favour of a belief in continuous settlement in the land since the patriarchs.


107

through Abraham and Moses. The Chronicler's retributive thought is properly a development of a central part of his community's religious tradition. Other streams of biblical tradition (such as the canonical prophetic corpus, the Deuteronomistic History and the Psalms) have contributed to the Chronicler's expression and outlook here; the work should not be considered simply or primarily as 'aggadic midrash' on the 'Levitical doctrine of guilt and atonement' (thus Johnstone 1986), but as a summation of the various scriptural currents that contributed to Israel's religious, and especially its liturgical, life. The Chronicler handles the theme of reward and punishment vis-a-vis his Vorlage with exegetical techniques which appear to be early forms of methods attested in rabbinic exegesis, especially semukin.^ Much of the Chronicler's interpolated material in 2 Chron. 10-36 (whatever its origins) is also readily understandable as amplifying or rendering explicit relationships which he saw already implied in Samuel-Kings. In his relation to his Vorlage the writer intensifies the presentation in his traditum (or, as in the case of Hezekiah, he may underplay his failings) but does not contradict it, nor does he really impose a foreign construction on his sources.84 Where he appears to be at variance with the judgments of Kings (e.g., over Solomon, Rehoboam, Abijah and Manasseh), a more careful reading of the text shows that the Chronicler's purpose is not to attribute an unsullied piety to these kings, in defiance of the earlier tradition, but to stress Yahweh's covenantal goodness to them or their place in Yahweh's purposes (which is summed up in his covenant with David). The Chronicler is not concerned to show 'the systematization of history' according to absolute divine justice,85 nor with 'rationalizing' the action of the deity.86 The traditional concerns of theodicy, such as the origin of evil and its final requiting, are not really addressed in the book. Nor is there any attempt to answer (or repudiate) the question of innocent suffering (cf. 1 Chron. 21.17; 2 Chron. 25.13), which we might expect as part of a rigorous theory of retribution. Nowhere is it stated or implied that every misfortune (typically in Chronicles, a foreign invasion,

83. Cf. 1 Chron. 13-14; 1 Chron. 21-22; cf. the specific studies in protomidrash by Seeligmann 1953; Fishbone 1979-80; Shinan 1985; and Zakovitch 1986. 84. As Childs (1979: 651-53) rightly recognizes. 85. Thus Japhet 1989: 156-76. 86. Cf. von Rad 1930; 1962.

108


but illness as well) is the consequence of sin (contra Wellhausen 1885: 203). On the other hand, where punishment is meted out, it is shown to be deserved and appropriate for the sin ,87 The writer uses the theme of blessing and punishment to demonstrate a much more fundamental concern than retribution, namely, Yahweh 's mercy and restorative will toward his sinful people. This has sometimes been observed with reference to the role of the prophets in Chronicles, but such a perception of the divine will pervades the whole presentation. As Johnstone emphasizes, Chronicles depicts sin as touching every part of Israel's life, most outstandingly in the case of David (cf. 1 Chron. 13, 21), who otherwise represents the writer's ideal. It is precisely because every reign is marked by some failing that the temple stands in the nation's midst. There, the destructive course of sin may be halted, Israel's life sanctified and the land made secure and fruitful (cf. 2 Chron. 31.10). There is, however, nothing ex opere operate about the temple's function, because behind it, Yahweh controls the course of history for Israel's sake. Thus, David's serious cultic failure toward the ark (which prefigures the temple) is nevertheless followed by blessing on his kingdom (1 Chron. 13-14); the suspension of the cult under Ahaz (2 Chron. 28.24) is succeeded by the reform under Hezekiah (2 Chron. 29.3); while the destruction of the temple only gives rise to a new divine initiative through Cyrus (2 Chron. 36.22-23). Certainly there is nothing mechanical about this narrative pattern. Rather we should note the surprising and gracious character of these transitions in Israel's fortunes. There is no balance between blessing, which comes consistently whenever Israel 'seeks Yahweh', and judgment, which can be mitigated or remitted entirely. The 'individual' and 'immediate' character of the doctrine (Dillard 1987) as it has usually been represented must be qualified and reassessed. The Chronicler can speak of collective judgment in Jehu's purge (2 Chron. 22.7-8), while the destruction and exile are not exclusively the fault of Zedekiah and his generation: exile is intimated already in 2 Chronicles 28 and becomes a steadily more insistent motif until the end of the work. Hezekiah's pride (2 Chron. 32.25) also contributes to that fate, though he, like Josiah (2 Chron. 34.26-28), is spared from seeing it. Their reforms can delay but not decisively avert the fall of 87. Cf. Japhet 1989: 170, 'measure for measure'.


109

judgment. Contra Japhet (1989: 163), 2 Chron. 36.15-16 probably refers to the continuous history of the monarchy which incurred the mounting wrath. It appears therefore that the Chronicler does recognize corporate and cumulative guilt, and the notion that punishment may be deferred. His differences in outlook over these questions with the Deuteronomistic History are more a matter of emphasis than substance. It is nevertheless true that the Chronicler stresses the 'individual' character of actions and their consequences. This fact is not related to the supposed late development of Old Testament thought on the status of the individual,88 nor is it simply a reflection of the Chronicler's 'deductive' manner of explaining the past, supplying acceptable theological reasons where the Vorlage was content merely to report events (cf. De Vries 1989). Instead, this emphasis belongs to the paraenetic nature and purpose of the work. While it affirms Yahweh's justice, it is above all the writer's means of underlining the opportunity that his own age has to pursue the path of full restoration, assisted by the institution of the temple (which signifies the Davidic covenant, along with the dynasty), and untrammelled by the consequences of past disobedience and judgment. The point is expressed most clearly in Hezekiah's summons to the Levites to purify the cult after the extreme unfaithfulness of Ahaz's reign (2 Chron. 29.5-6). In this speech Hezekiah remarks (v. 8) that because of the previous generation's sinful behaviour, Yahweh's wrath came upon Judah and Jerusalem, and he has made them an object of dread and horror and scorn, as you can see with your own eyes, and see, our fathers have fallen by the sword and our sons, daughters and wives are in captivity for this.

While the immediate reference is to the reign of Ahaz (cf. 2 Chron. 28.5), the precise verbal allusions in this verse to Jer. 29.18 especially ('an object of dread..., horror and scorn') plainly evoke thought of the Babylonian exile.89 Hezekiah's cult reform is intended 'so that Yahweh will turn his fierce anger away from us' (v. 10). The Chronicler's community stands in an analogous situation, and is instructed through this

88. Thus von Rad 1962: 349-50; Japhet 1989. 89. Williamson 1982: 353. Cf. Ackroyd 1973: 181: 'Prophetic judgement themes underline this sermonic address. The point is made still clearer in the emphasis on the people actually seeing with their own eyes (v. 8) the present conditions of the land and city [... ] (T)he Chronicler is here commenting on the exilic situation.'

110


and numerous other examples that the guilt and failings of previous generations need not be visited upon it. In this respect, the writer's emphasis upon the 'individual' character of retribution emerges as fundamentally positive.90

90. Striibind (1991: 50) more accurately describes this aspect as 'generationenimmanent'.

Chapter 5 THE USE OF SOURCES IN MOTIFS OF REWARDAND PUNISHMENT IN 2 CHRONICLES10-36

1. Sources in Chronicles: Welten's Critique A cursory examination of the Chronicler's Sondergut in 2 Chronicles 10-36 indicates that the greater part of this material serves to illustrate his doctrine of divine reward and punishment. Recognition of this evident theological purpose has contributed to the suspicion that has prevailed for much of the modern period that the author was unreliable as a witness to the pre-exilic history of Israel, and indeed possessed little historical sense. Already in the sixteenth century doubts had been expressed about the historical worth of the book,1 but these became general with the advent of modern biblical criticism. Graham (1990) has charted the course of nineteenth-century Chronicles studies as a series of challenges to, and defences of, the work's historical reliability, beginning with de Wette's (1806) judgment that it was a tendentious falsification ('Verfalschung') of the events of the distant past.2 Wellhausen (1885) extended de Wette's critique on several levels, particularly on the historical basis of the pericopae describing reward and punishment in 2 Chronicles 10-36. The theological character of these sections and the author's plan of writing revealed these sections to be 'inventions of the 1. For the history of research up to Wellhausen see Willi 1972: 12-47. 2. De Wette (1806:1,42-132) compares Chronicles unfavourably with SamuelKings according to several criteria. De Wette's theological critique of Chronicles was directed mainly against its depiction of the cult, and the bias he perceived in the work against Israel and in favour of Judah. A forceful defence of the historicity of Chronicles was mounted by Keil ('Apologetischer Versuch', 1833; 1872), who argued that the Chronicler drew on a common source as did the authors of Samuel and Kings. It is, however, scarcely doubted today that the Chronicler was directly dependent on Samuel-Kings, whatever his use of extrabiblical sources (Japhet 1993: 14-23). Auld (1994) has recently revived the older theory.

112


most circumstantial kind' (p. 207), and as a late date for the Priestly Writing was increasingly accepted, the historical value of Chronicles was correspondingly depreciated.3 The work was now studied primarily as an adjunct to Pentateuchal criticism or as a witness to the life and thought of the later post-exilic period. The more negative judgments about the historicity of the work that characterized the latter part of the nineteenth century have in turn been significantly moderated.4 Two related factors here have been the growth of archaeological knowledge of the monarchic period,5 and the detection of extrabiblical pre-exilic sources incorporated by the writer. Since Noth (1943), there has been a gradual expansion of the amount of material in Chronicles that can be attributed to such sources. Noth held that two passages at least (2 Chron. 32.30, the description of Hezekiah's tunnel; and 2 Chron. 35.20-24, the account of Josiah's death) could be confidently assigned to monarchic sources. The modern period of Chronicles studies, inaugurated by Rudolph (1955), has added significantly to this list, largely through literary source criticism. The researches of Myers (1965), Johnson (1969) and Williamson (1982) in particular have taken a positive view toward the presence of pre-exilic traditional material in Chronicles, and have sought to identify it through literary analysis. If the use of such sources can be confirmed, it may provide an important pointer to the character of the Chronicler's work, suggesting that he did not compose his narrative out of whole cloth, but rather that his evidently theological message has a historical basis. This point must be made with the following caveats. First, it must be expected that for much of the writer's Sondergut there may be little evidence either way that extrabiblical sources have been used. While the style and outlook of the post-exilic author may be readily identified, it remains possible that he assimilated earlier materials to conform to these. It may in practice be difficult to distinguish redaction from tradition. Secondly, the form of the work, in which the Vorlage is represented 3. See the summary in Graham 1990: 128-34 of Graf's dating of P using Chronicles, arguments which were adopted and amplified by Wellhausen. 4. Cf. Japhet 1985 for a survey of the major trends in scholarship. 5. On the contribution of archaeology see especially Japhet 1985: 94-95. Besides Welten (see below), North (1974) takes a categorically negative view on this matter.

5. Sources in 2 Chronicles 10-36

113

in a highly patterned and selective way, indicates that the writer's primary concern was to address and instruct his readers in a homiletical manner, and to draw out the significance of these past events for them, rather than to compose either a parallel or a 'strongly "revisionist" history' using the Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic History.6 This need not imply, however, that the Chronicler was indifferent to historical matters. As Deboys (1990) and Schniedewind (1991) indicate in their respective studies of Abijah and Manasseh, homiletic and historical concerns are not necessarily opposed to each other in the Chronicler's work. However, while English-language scholarship increasingly affirms the use of pre-exilic sources in Chronicles,7 a divergent approach to this question has been taken in recent German work.8 The most extensive challenge has come from Welten (1973), endorsed by Striibind (1991).9 Welten's work is a study of some parts of the Sondergut in 2 Chronicles 10-36 which have usually been seen as stereotypical motifs of reward. From his analysis of the literary and linguistic characteristics of these sections, as well as an appraisal of archaeological and other historical evidence, Welten concludes that the Chronicler made very little use of earlier extrabiblical sources. Only a few brief notices from the time of Rehoboam, Uzziah and Hezekiah are accepted as authentic, while three other portions are judged possible but less likely.10 Welten's study is confined mainly to the categories or topoi of building notices (especially fortifications), descriptions of Judah's army, and military victories. He examines the texts belonging to each category in the light of 6. Thus Van Seters (1983: 361) on the Chronicler's purpose. This presupposition also underlies Japhet's work (1989; 1993). Cf. Chapter 2 n. 10 above on the view that Chronicles is to be understood as a work of history intended to supplant (or supplement) the Deuteronomistic History. Von Rad (1930: 133) denied that the author intended to write history, but apparently treated Chronicles as such a work in his Theology (1962: 347-48). 7. Cf. Myers, Johnson, Williamson, Dillard, Selman. Braun (1986: xxiii) takes a rather negative view on this, but his discussion is very brief. 8. Cf. Chapter 2 n. 10, on recent German approaches to the genre of Chronicles. 9. Strubind 1991: 177. 10. Welten accepts as evidence of earlier sources the list of Rehoboam's fortresses (ll.Sb, 6-10a), the notice of Uzziah's war against the Philistines and his agricultural works (26.6a, 10), and the description of Hezekiah's tunnel (32.30). He also allows that the family details in 11.22-23 and 21.1-4 and the report of Josiah's death (35.20-25) could reflect pre-exilic sources (1973: 191-94).

114


their literary and historical evidence, as well as the category as a whole in relation to the author's literary methods and purposes. Like Torrey (to whom, however, he makes no reference), Welten concludes that the vast majority of the Sondergut is the author's own creation. Chronicles has no real historical interests, but instead represents a new literary phenomenon (1973: 205): With the Books of Chronicles history writing in Israel enters a new phase, in which traditions are no longer collected and edited, or an existing work appears in a new version. The Chronicler writes the history from beginning to end in a new and independent way.11

The best analogy for this new genre is said to be the book of Judith, which E. Haag described as a 'free, parabolic representation of history ("Geschichtsdarstellung")' (Welten 1973: 206) that purports to narrate history but is actually edifying fiction. In the same way, the contents of Chronicles really reflect the social, religious and political circumstances of the author's Hellenistic period rather than pre-exilic times. According to Welten, this era was one of permanent external threat to the small, beleaguered community of Judah. The topoi of fortifications and army notices do not convey authentic information, since the description makes it clear that neither fortresses nor armies played any real military role. Rather they are to be understood as reflexes of the motif of 'rest', the security which Judah enjoys when it 'seeks Yahweh'. Similarly, the four 'Yahweh war' reports do not reflect pre-exilic traditions but are a schematic demonstration of the divine protection Judah can expect on every side ('nach alien vier Himmelsrichtungen') from its hostile neighbours, provided it faithfully observes the cult (1973: 201-204).12 In the following discussion it is argued that the sharp distinction that Welten draws between theology and history in Chronicles is overdrawn. 11. 'Mit den Chronikbtichern tritt die Geschichtsschreibung in Israel in eine ganz neue Phase, wo nicht mehr Traditionen gesammelt und redigiert werden, wo nicht mehr ein vorgebenes Werk in eine neue Bearbeitung aufgeht. Der Chronist schreibt die Geschichte von Anfang bis Ende neu und selbstandig durch.' 12. Welten (p. 169) observes that prior to the Chronicler's time, Neh. 2.11-7.3 showed the province of Yehud facing threats from each direction (Sanballat and his sons in the north, Geshem the Arab in the south, Tobiah and the Ammonites in the east, and the Ashdodites in the west). He argues that the Chronicler's 'Yahweh war' accounts are literary projections of the post-exilic community's disputes with its surrounding neighbours, and are intended to show the schematic defence of Judah in the north (13.2-19), south (14.8-14 [E 9-15]), east (20.1-30), and west (26.6-8).


115

It will be maintained instead that the retributive motifs of 2 Chronicles 10-36 reflect earlier traditions to a much greater extent than Welten allows, and that this is an important feature in understanding the nature of the work. 2. The Chronicler's Sondergut in 2 Chronicles 10-36 This material falls into two broad groups, both of which are related to the author's doctrine of retribution. The first group includes signs of divine reward in the form of buildings, army organization, military victory, progeny, wealth and tribute; and its negative counterpart, divine punishment in the form of military defeat, disease and death. The second group recounts information about the religious life of Judah, including accounts of the reforms and apostasies of individual kings. Examples from each group are discussed below for evidence of the use of extrabiblical sources. 1. Motifs of Divine Reward (i) Building notices ('Baunotizen'). References to building works are confined to those reigns (or portions thereof) that are judged positively by the Chronicler. Thus, such works are (apparently) ascribed to Rehoboam's positive period (11.5-12; cf. vv. 13-17; although, in fact, no chronological notice is given), and to Asa (14.5-6 [E 6-7]; cf. v. 2), Jehoshaphat (17.12-13; cf. 3-10), Uzziah (26.2, 6c, 9-10a; cf. v. 4), Hezekiah (32.5, 29-30) and Manasseh, following repentance (33.14; cf. v. 12). Of these reigns, the first and last are on the whole judged negatively by the Chronicler, while the others are judged on the whole positively, despite lapses.13 Some of these notices are only brief and stereotypical, but in at least four cases there is fuller information which suggests underlying sources. First, there is widespread agreement that the account of Rehoboam's fortifications (11.5-12) is based on a pre-exilic document (reflected in vv. 6a-10a) to which the Chronicler has attached introductory and concluding notes.14 The details are not paralleled in any other biblical lists, and they make good sense as a defensive perimeter for Judah on

13. Welten's theory that the author wished to present the first four kings of Judah in a positive light (1973: 127, supported by Klein 1983: 214-15) is criticized below. 14. Welten (1973: 15) also accepts its authenticity.

116


the east, south and west.15 Largely on archaeological grounds, the list has been attributed to the time of Josiah or Hezekiah.16 However, it does accord with the political circumstances of Rehoboam's time, either before or after Shishak's invasion.17 Aharoni (1979: 293) also points to the internal evidence of Chronicles that this line did play a defensive role in the first half of the ninth century: the defeat of Zerah at Mareshah (14.8-14 [E 9-15]), and the eastern coalition near Tekoa (20.1-24).18 By contrast, Na'aman (1986) objects that the archaeological evidence for 15. See Miller 1987: 277 for a map showing the distribution of these fortresses. Aharoni suggests that there was no northern line because Rehoboam wished to expand in that direction (1979: 292), but Williamson argues that no town in the north may have been suitable, and Rehoboam may not have felt a threat from that quarter (1982: 241). The absence of mention of fortresses on the north side may, however, be explained by the fact that Rehoboam retained control of Gezer, Lower Beth-Horon and Baalah, towns which Solomon had built (1 Kgs 9.15-18), presumably to guard the north approach to Jerusalem via the Ascent of Beth-horon. 16. See Na'aman 1986: 9-10 for a brief discussion of Junge, Alt and Fritz who assign the list to Josiah's time, and Na'aman's own view that it reflects measures taken by Hezekiah to prepare against Sennacherib's attack. His arguments are based on the distribution of Imlk stamps (from jars which he thinks contained siege rations) and the assumption that the Chronicler omitted northern cities from the list for ideological reasons. Na'aman's arguments are criticized by Garflnkel (1988), who points out that the present known distribution of Imlk stamps does not match the list very closely, while there is no biblical evidence that Hezekiah fortified any city other than Jerusalem. However, it is very likely that Hezekiah did undertake other defensive measures (see further below). Na'aman reaffirms his views in a reply to Garflnkel (1986: 74-75). For a critique of Fritz's views, see Miller 1987: 278-79. Japhet (1993: 665-67) accepts that the list comes from Rehoboam's time, taking it as a summary of his activity throughout his reign. 17. If the fortifications were begun before Shishak's invasion, this may suggest the threat Judah feared from Egypt, to whom Jeroboam probably owed fealty (Dillard 1987: 95); if afterwards, it was as a result of his attack (Aharoni 1979: 292). It seems unlikely, though, that Rehoboam would have been allowed to fortify his southeast border after a campaign which left him a vassal, according to 2 Chron. 12.8. 18. This assumes, of course, that there is a historical kernel to these accounts, for all that they are presented in the extreme, stylized form of 'Yahweh war' narratives. Welten objects 'that the reports of military constructions have no relation to the numerous campaigns within the Chronistic work. In no war report in Chronicles do the fortresses play a role' ('dafi die Berichte iiber militarische Bauten keine Beziehung zu den zahlreichen Feldziigen innerhalb des chronistischen Werkes haben. In keinem Kriegsbericht der Chronik spielen die Festungen eine Rolle') (p. 10). However, these geographical notices may suggest otherwise. See below on 'military victory'.


111

Beth-zur and Lachish for Rehoboam's time is quite ambiguous, and that Philistine Gath (v. 8) was not part of his kingdom. However, 'Gath' in the list probably denotes Moresheth-Gath, which may have lost the first part of its name from haplography (Dillard 1987: 97; Japhet 1993: 667). The account of Uzziah's military and agricultural activities (26.9-13) is also generally accepted, largely on the basis of extensive archaeological finds assigned to this period.19 A description of Hezekiah's defensive measures against Sennacherib is given in 32.5, 30. The latter note is widely accepted as evidence of an earlier source.20 Welten argues from the grammar of v. 5 (wawconsecutive imperfect without a substantive subject immediately following v. 4) and the typically Chronistic language that the author composed this note himself without any source (1973: 29-31), but as an expansion of Isa. 22.9b-ll (1973: 72). However, more recent archaeological indications appear to support the implications of this verse, that Hezekiah did in fact undertake a considerable expansion of the defended area of the city. Broshi has deduced from excavations in the Jewish Quarter and the Armenian Garden that around 700 BCE Jerusalem increased to three or four times its former size, after changing very little from Solomon's time. Broshi attributes this to immigration from the north after 721 and from western Judah after 701. Shiloh's excavations at the north end of the City of David also found little evidence of activity in the ninth century, but considerable evidence of activity in the eighth century which he thinks probably points to the work of Hezekiah.21 Finally, the detailed description of Manasseh's building works (33.14a) may reflect a pre-exilic source, as Noth maintained (1967: 141). The topographical and textual difficulties are discussed by Welten, who argues instead that it reflects the Chronicler's own time (1973: 72-78). 19. Cf. Williamson 1982: 336-37; Japhet 1993: 876-77. Dillard (1987: 209) also refers to the discovery of a seal bearing Uzziah's name in a cistern in Tell Beit Mirsim. The evidence of pre-exilic sources for v. 9 is less secure than for v. 10: the reference to the Corner Gate could have been deduced from 25.23 (= 2 Kgs 14.13), while Welten (1973: 63-66) holds that the topography and special use of "TTSD reflect post-exilic times. On the other hand, it is very likely that Uzziah would have undertaken such repairs; moreover, Amos 1.1 and Zech. 14.5 may suggest that Jerusalem sustained significant damage from the earthquake during his reign (Selman 1994b: 469). 20. The case was strongly put by Noth (1967: 139). North (1974: 379) rejects this conclusion, but cf. Japhet 1993: 977-78. 21. Broshi 1974; Shiloh 1984: 28a.

118


In particular, Welten holds that 'Ophel' does not denote the spur connecting the temple mount to the City of David,22 but is post-exilic usage for the northern part of the city, including the temple area and the quarters for the cult personnel (pp. 67, 77). Thus, according to Welten, v. 14 makes the improbable ascription to Manasseh of building works around the entire perimeter of the city, from the southeast to the Fish Gate in the northwest and thence to the temple area. However, such an identification of Ophel is far from certain.23 Following Broshi, the passage may also be understood as a westward expansion of the city, as a continuation of Hezekiah's policies (cf. 32.5).u On the other hand, other references to building works are much less certain. Where they are expressed in generalized terms that bear the strong imprint of the Chronicler's style (e.g. 14.5-6 [E 6-7]; 17.12-13a) or as a parallel with a preceding reign (27.3-4 with 26.9, 15), there is less reason to postulate another source. (ii) Army Notices ('Heeresverfassung'). A number of notices purporting to give information about the composition and equipment of Judah's army at various times during the monarchy forms the next topos examined by Welten (1973: 79-114). In his view these notices are marked by a unitary Chronistic style and by anachronisms, and function as a measure of theological evaluation of particular reigns. From such features he concludes that the notices have no authenticity, but are the author's own compositions, reflecting the Hellenistic armies of the Chronicler's own 22. The identification is made in Josephus, War 5.145. 23. Welten's view is based in part on the versional evidence, which is at best ambivalent. The Targum renders Ophel as pltyryn (= 'praetorium'), whereas Syr and Arab read 'all Jerusalem'. By contrast, LXX and Vulg transcribe asopla or Ophel. A more serious difficulty for Welten's theory is presented by Shiloh's observation (1984: 27) that 'Ophel' is not a name particular to Jerusalem but is an urban architectural term denoting the outstanding site of a citadel or acropolis. The term is used in 2 Kgs 5.24 for the citadel of Samaria, and also for that built by Mesha at Dibon. Shiloh argues that from the tenth century BCE the hill of the City of David was divided into three main units, of which the central one was the 'Ophel' where the citadel may have been located. Welten also fails to reckon with the use of the term in Isa. 32.14. 24. Kenyon (1974: 150-51) assigned the wall she discovered on the eastern slope of the southeastern ridge of the City of David to Hezekiah. However, Bahat (1981) argues that it is to be attributed to Manasseh because it meets the description of 33.14.


119

late post-exilic period (1973: 98-114). Again, it is likely that these notes are intended for the most part to reflect blessing upon a reign (or part of one) which is judged positively. However, in taking such a historically sceptical position Welten parts company with many scholars preceding him who discerned in these notices evidence of earlier sources.25 The subject is helpfully reviewed by Williamson, who argues that at a number of points Welten has misinterpreted the evidence and that in one case certainly (25.5) the description is both an integral part of its context and features in a passage (vv. 6-13) in which the king, Amaziah, is acting in a way of which the Chronicler disapproves. The general authenticity of this passage is also affirmed by Rainey.26 Williamson comments that this exception should warn against placing these notices automatically on the same level as those about building. Moreover, they are fewer in number compared with the building notices, suggesting that the Chronicler was constrained by regard for the sources from which he drew this material (1982: 261-62). The texts in question are 14.7 [E 8]; 17.13b-19; 26.11-15; and 25.5. Welten recognizes that the last-named verse forms an exception (1973: 95-96 n. 97) but does not otherwise discuss it. He attributes the first three to the Chronicler's own composition largely on formal and linguistic grounds. Each is concerned with enumerating the forces, while two begin with similar formulae: sos1? -m or irrob -m (14.7; 26.11). The passages also describe the organization of the army according to equipment and tribal divisions (Judah and Benjamin) and employ a number of expressions particularly common in P and Chronicles (mat* rra; mps; tos rer). Welten considers that these texts present a unitary picture. The absence of reference to horses and chariots is considered remarkable (p. 99), given the putative period of these notices (c. 900-750 BCE) and our knowledge of this time from earlier traditions (cf. 2 Kgs 3.7; 8.21; Isa. 2.7). The neat division of weapons along tribal lines (large shields and spears for Judah, small shields and bows for Benjamin) is also unlikely, and was probably composed by the Chronicler on the basis of Judg. 20.16 (p. 102). The real source of this 25. Junge (1937: 37-45) attributed the Chronicler's notices to dislocated material from Josiah's time, since they concerned only conscript armies and made no reference to chariots. This dating was rejected by others who nevertheless accepted that the author made use of sources here (Goettsberger, Rudolph, Michaeli, Myers, Gazelles). 26. Rainey 1988.

120


division into heavily and lightly armed forces was the Chronicler's knowledge of the Hellenistic armies that had long been present in Palestine, first as mercenaries, and then immediately prior to the Chronicler's time under Alexander (pp. 106-111). Finally, 26.15a appears to ascribe defensive catapults to Uzziah's time, against the evidence that such devices were unknown before the fifth century BCE (p. 113). These arguments are criticized at a number of points by Williamson. Following Junge, he observes that the notices are themselves free of any moralizing or religious elements. Moreover, they give details not of standing armies but of conscripts (1982: 261). This explains the absence of reference to horses and chariots. Williamson also notes that the argument from style is partly offset by the nature of the comparable technical material that is being treated. Although the reports do contain expressions from Late Biblical Hebrew, stylistic considerations may also point to the use of sources. In 17.13b-19 details of the standing army (vv. 13b, 19 and the names of individual commanders) appear to be confused with details of the conscript army. Moreover, Amasiah is described in v. 16 as rnrrb manon, which Williamson notes is not explained in any way and is unparalleled in comparable cases (1982: 284). Both details suggest that inherited materials underlie this account, which the Chronicler passes on as a tradent. Welten maintains that the description of Amasiah is 'expressly Chronistic' (1973: 84) and points to the evidence of Curtis's list that anunn is found almost exclusively in Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah. However, the examples which are clearly by the authors of these works have to do exclusively with freewill offerings or the decision of returnees to live in Jerusalem.27 By contrast, the military sense of the expression is attested in Judg. 5.2, 9, which is undeniably ancient.28 Finally, Welten's interpretation of 26.15a as an anachronistic reference to catapults, an identification important for his late dating of the work, is probably mistaken. Yadin had long ago suggested that rffihrr rnttfriD rrmaJn referred not to torsion-operated weapons but rather (as the Hebrew suggests) 'skilfully made' defensive structures built onto the towers and battlements for archers and throwers. The reliefs of Sennacherib's assault on Lachish, from a time shortly after Uzziah, show just such protective structures.29 27. Cf. 1 Chron. 29.5, 6, 9, 14, 17; Ezra 2.68; 3.5; 7.13, 15, 16; Neh. 11.2. 28. Cf. Soggin 1981: 80-81. 29. Yadin 1963: 325-27. Williamson (1982: 338) also points to more recent


121

So far our discussion has been limited to indications of extrabiblical sources underlying the army notices of 2 Chronicles 10-36. This positive evidence is also of a piece with the other military Chronistic material in 1 Chronicles 11-12. Williamson (1982: 104) observes that the additional list of David's heroes in 1 Chron. 11.41b-47 is unlikely to be a postexilic fabrication (thus Noth), since all the identifiable places of origin are in Transjordan, an area regarded with suspicion by the post-exilic community. The material in 1 Chronicles 12 could well stem from the Davidic period, although the structure and style of that unit belong to the Chronicler. Johnson (1988: 63-68) has demonstrated that military census materials underlie much of 1 Chronicles 2-8 (particularly for the genealogies of Issachar, Benjamin, Asher and the Transjordanian tribes), so it is a reasonable surmise that other similar material is reflected in the scattered notices in the post-Solomonic narrative. (iii) Military victories ('Kriegsberichte mit positivem Ausgang'). Military victories constitute the third topos examined in detail by Welten (1973: 115-75). 2 Chronicles 10-36 contains fifteen accounts of war without parallel in the Vorlage, of which six describe victories which occur during reigns (or parts thereof) that are apparently judged positively by the Chronicler.30 Although these reports are presented in a highly schematized way, with moralizing comment and the imprint of the Chronicler's style (catalogued by Welten on pp. 117-22, 133-35, 14243), they also contain onomastic and geographical details which may reflect earlier forms of the traditions. Before considering such details, we must first review Welten's basic approach to these texts. As with the other topoi, he holds these accounts to be the author's own compositions, written without recourse to other sources. Welten argues that the writer was motivated by two main considerations. First, he wished to present the first four kings of Judah in a positive light so as to bolster the legitimacy of the post-exilic community over against its northern neighbour (p. 127). This is said to explain the significant divergences from Kings which Welten sees in the archaeological evidence of rather earlier use of catapults in the near east. 30. The Chronicler's Sondergut of victories is related in: 13.3-20 (Abijah); 14.814 [E 9-15] (Asa); 20.1-30 (Jehoshaphat); 25.10-13 (Amaziah; but cf. 2 Kgs 14.7); 26.6-8 (Uzziah); 27.5-6 (Jotham). Defeats are recounted in: 21.16-17 (Jehoram); 28.5-8, 16-20 (Ahaz); 33.10-13 (Manasseh); 35.20-25 (Josiah); 36.6-7 (Jehoiachim); 36.10 (Jehoiachin); 36.17-20 (Zedekiah).

122


Chronicler's depiction of Rehoboam and Abijah (pp. 126-27). Secondly, it is likely that tense relations existed not only between Yehud and Samaria, but also with the other surrounding provinces of Ammon, Moab, Idumaea and Ashdod. Thus the real theme of the Chronistic war reports is the disputes of Yehud with its encircling neighbours who, it seems, posed a constant and considerable threat to the Chronicler's community, both territorially and religiously (pp. 169-70). The Chronicler transposed these disputes into a kind of paraenetic historical fiction set in the monarchy ('Geschichtsdarstellung' rather than 'Geschichte'), from which the Chronicler's community could rightly infer that the path to security vis-a-vis its neighbours lay in cultic fidelity. This moral is drawn especially in the 'Yahweh war' narratives, where 'in all four reports [viz. 13.3-19; 14.8-14 (E 9-15); 20.1-30; 26.6-8] Judah's military weakness is to be perceived just as clearly as Yahweh's miraculous intervention' (pp. 170-71).31 These narratives present 'the striking picture of the cult community, humbly and obediently maintaining its worship through legitimate cult personnel, calling on God and seeking him, and obtaining rest in north, south, east and west' (pp. 171-72).32 In reply, it must be stated that while a paraenetic purpose has certainly shaped the form of these reports, Welten's wider interpretation is more questionable. First, the apologetic interpretation which he discerns in the presentation of the first four kings of Judah is certainly refuted by the overall evaluation of Rehoboam in 12.14. The presentation of Jehoshaphat is also complex, for while the Chronicler does evaluate him positively (cf. 21.12; 22.9), he also shows him in a negative light (cf. 18.1-2; 20.35-37). The Chronicler's portrayal of Abijah is more problematic. Although it is often seen to contradict the negative assessment in 1 Kgs 15.3 (cf. Curtis and Madsen 1910: 373; Michaeli 1967: 177; Dillard 1987: 110), there are indications in the text that the Chronicler's attitude toward Abijah is more ambivalent than has usually been allowed.33 Whatever the significance 2 Chronicles 13 would have had in

31. '[I]n alien vier Berichten [1st] die militarische Ohnmacht Judas ebenso deutlich zu fassen wie das wunderhafte Eingreifen Jahwes.' 32. 'So begegnet in der Zusammenschau der vier Kriegsberichte das ttberraschende Bild der Kultgemeinde, die im Demut und Gehorsam ihre Gottesdienste halt durch legitimes Kultpersonal, die Gott anruft und inn sucht, die Ruhe gewinnt, Ruhe geschenkt erhalt, im Norden und im Siiden, im Osten und im Westen.' 33. Cf. Deboys 1990.


123

the post-exilic community, it should certainly not be read as a piece of anti-Samaritan (or anti-Samarian) polemic.34 Welten's second argument also has only limited validity. First, the assumption that the 'Yahweh war' narratives are intended to give hope and consolation to a defenceless people is a fair inference from 2 Chronicles 20, where Judah's weakness is emphasized (v. 12) and the army does not participate at all in the fighting (v. 17). However, it is clear from 13.17-19 and 14.12-14 [E 13-15] that Judah's armies do participate in these battles, although the victories are conventionally ascribed to Yahweh (13.12; 14.11 [E 12]) and there are other features of 'Yahweh war' in the presentation.35 Secondly, Welten includes 26.6-8 (Uzziah's campaigns against the Philistines, Arabs and Meunites) under the rubric of 'Yahweh war' to complete the circle of divine protection for Judah (pp. 168-69). However, this pericope is unlike the others in that it describes an offensive rather than defensive campaign and has none of the characteristic motifs of 'Yahweh war'. The suggestion that the Chronicler has composed a geographically based schema here is really quite doubtful. Discussion of sources in 2 Chronicles 13 has usually focused on the geographical notices in vv. 4, 19. The location of Mount Zemaraim is uncertain, but Josh. 18.21-24 lists a Benjaminite town of that name, along with Bethel and Ophrah (Ephron). Klein holds that this list was the Chronicler's sole source for composing this account, but he is required to restore Jeshanah to the list for it to serve as the Chronicler's supposed Vorlage (1983: 215-16). This procedure is rejected by Deboys as circular and untenable on text-critical grounds (1990: 61). While there can be no doubt that the language and ideas expressed in Abijah's speech are the Chronicler's own work, the most likely reason for the inclusion of this narrative remains that suggested by Noth, that the Chronicler knew of a tradition which ascribed the capture of these towns to Abijah, from which he developed an account which modifies the portrayal (not the evaluation) in Kings.36 34. Contra Noth, Rudolph, Oeming. Cf. Williamson 1977a: 111-14. 35. See Chapter 8 for a discussion of these motifs and the theological significance of these accounts. 36. Noth 1967: 142. Deboys (1990: 54) also makes an interesting form-critical comparison with a passage from Thucydides (Book II Section 71) in which envoys from Plataea try unsuccessfully to dissuade a Lacedaemonian expedition by means of speeches invoking right and deity. One further point calls for comment. Welten lays

124


Three main positions are represented by those who hold that there is a historical basis to the account of Asa's defeat of Zerah the Cushite.37 (1) Kitchen (1986: 309) proposes that it concerns an expedition led by a general of Nubian extraction serving under Osorkon I, who perhaps wished to emulate the exploits of his father Shoshenq. (2) Albright (1924) suggested that Shoshenq had established a garrison or buffer state around Gerar, which was peopled by Nubian mercenaries who eventually invaded Judah. (3) This is rejected on archaeological and textual grounds by S. Hidal,38 who argues instead that the Chronicler magnified a local conflict involving Bedouin tribes south of Judah. In this respect the parallel sometimes drawn between 'Cushan' and 'Midian' is suggestive.39 There is no epigraphic or other extrabiblical evidence for this account, nor does the text preserve signs of an earlier source. The question of whether the Chronicler was dependent on an earlier tradition can be determined only by considering his procedure in analogous situations, and the coherence of the internal details of the account with our knowledge of the period. On the first matter, 13.3-19 presents just such an analogy. Although external evidence is similarly lacking in that case, no reason was found for preferring Welten's position that the account is simply a fabrication. The internal details also give grounds for accepting that 14.8-14 has a historical core, and of the main reconstructions proposed, Kitchen's seems the most plausible. Kitchen first points out that much store by the fact that Chronicler describes battles between 'iiberdimensioniert' armies, indeed of 'Weltkriegdimensione', but places the combats within small, geographically defined areas. The numbers in Chronicles are problematic (though not outstandingly so in comparison with other historical books of the Old Testament), yet this incongruence hardly demonstrates that the reports lack a historical basis or are simply parabolic (as opposed to hyperbolic). An important observation is contributed indirectly by Younger's recent comparative analysis of ancient warfare accounts (1990). Younger draws attention to what he calls the 'common transmission codes' and stereotypical syntagms of ancient Near Eastern accounts of conquest and military victory, and in particular the universal use of hyperbole and the ascription of victory to the respective nation's deity. Neither feature militates against a historical basis to these reports. 37. Cf. Williamson 1982: 263-65 for a summary of the main views. 38. S. Hidal, SEA 41-42 (1976-77), 100-101, cited by Williamson 1982: 264. 39. Cf. Hab. 3.7. Dillard (1987: 119) also draws attention to the traditions that Moses, whose father-in-law was a priest of Midian (Exod. 2.16-21) had married a 'Cushite' woman (Num. 12.1), which might refer to Zipporah.


125

Zerah is not to be equated with Osorkon I, as earlier commentators suggested.40 The absence of Egyptian epigraphic evidence is understandable in view of a defeat. A further reason supporting the African origin of this person is the association made between the Cushites and Libyans in 16.8; cf. 12.3. Bedouins are also unlikely to have had chariots (v. 8), while the course of the pursuit from Mareshah to Gerar would correspond to an attack from Egypt, but accords less easily with the location of Cushan to the south of Judah.41 Finally, the reference to Mareshah (v. 8) corresponds to the internal evidence of 11.8. Such details do not amount to positive evidence, and there are clear examples of stylization and hyperbole (cf. v. 8). Nevertheless, a coherent case can be made out that the Chronicler here reflects an earlier tradition of a victory by Asa over a foreign force. The account of the defeat of the eastern coalition in Jehoshaphat's time (20.1-30) raises similar evidential and source-critical questions as in the previous examples. Among those who ascribe a historical kernel to this report, it is generally seen as a magnification of a local conflict in the post-exilic period or as dependent in some distant way on a good local tradition.42 Noth argued from the toponymic details and the apparent reference to 'Meunites' in v. 1 (derived from the LXX reading MIVOUGOV for MT Dliorna) that the Chronicler had used a local oral tradition of an attack by Nabataeans from Meun (or Ma'an) southeast of Petra in the late fourth or early third century. Rudolph (1955: 259) 40. Cf. Welten 1973: 132 n. 94. Kitchen (1986: 309-10) points out that Zerah is designated a Cushite rather than a Libyan or Egyptian; that he is not a king (which the Chronicler might have mentioned, if only to show the significance of the Israelite victory); and that the linguistic equation of Osorkon with Zerah is not tenable. 41. Cf. Aharoni 1979: 132 for the location of Cushan in the Canaanite period. The reference to the attack on the nspa ^ntf (v. 14) is taken to support the 'Bedouin' interpretation of this incident, but Dillard (1987: 119) explains this as part of the camp following for the invading army. 42. The historicity is again rejected by Welten (1973: 140-53) followed by Striibind (1991: 176-88). The older view that it is a historical midrash on 2 Kgs 3 (Wellhausen, Benzinger, Curtis) is increasingly rejected (most recently by Striibind 1991: 179), but upheld by Welten. P.R. Davies (1990) offers a sociological interpretation of the narrative as a projection of the struggle of the post-exilic community to define itself ethnically following the loss of its national identity. Davies assigns the emergence of the concept of 'Israel' to this period (cf. Davies 1992). Most recently, Beentjes (1993) agrees with Welten and thinks the narrative has been imaginatively constructed out of Exod. 14 and Isa. 7.9b.

126


modified Noth's arguments, rejecting the association of the Nabataeans with the Meunites, and arguing that the account did indeed come from Jehoshaphat's time; the Chronicler had followed a written source for his explanatory comment on Hazazon-tamar H: pj NTT (v. 2). Williamson attributes this comment to the Chronicler, but points to the aetiology in v. 26 as indicating the presence of a further layer in the literary or tradition history of the account.43 No attempt to identify more precisely the third group in v. 1 is likely to succeed, owing to the corrupt state of the text.44 Nor does Noth's association of this group with the 'Meunites' accord well with what is suggested of that people in 26.7. Whatever the true reading of 20.1 should be, this group is later designated 'those from the hill country of Seir' (vv. 10, 22, 23) and they are clearly set apart from the Ammonites and Moabites. This is a synonymous expression in many biblical passages for Edom.45 'Edom' is not used as an ethnic designation in this chapter,46 perhaps because at this point the Edomites were still subject to Jehoshaphat (cf. 1 Chron. 18.12-13). However, the term recurs in 21.8-10, where the Edomites regain their independence.47 Together these details point to small yet traditional elements underlying the Chronicler's account. Military victories are also related in two other Chronistic passages, 26.6-8 and 27.5. The first is universally agreed to reflect a pre-exilic source. The latter passage is expressed in more generalized terms, and its point is evidently to reflect positively on Jotham. However, it may also implicitly concede that tribute from Ammon ceased after three years as Aram's power increased. 43. See especially Noth 1967; Rudolph 1955: 259; Williamson 1982: 291-94. 44. The most recent proposal is by Bartlett (1989: 143-45), who suggests a local tradition about the people of Maon. 45. Cf. Gen. 32.3; 36.6-8; Num. 24.18; Deut. 2.4-5; Judg. 5.4; Isa. 21.11; Ezek. 25.8; 35.15. 46. Although it should probably be restored as a geographic description in v. 2 (instead of Q-»). Cf. 1 Chron. 18.11 (contrast 2 Sam. 8.12 MT). 47. Cf. Davies 1990: 7. The identification with Edom, Israel's close yet antagonistic relation, may be supported by the way in which 'those from the hill country of Seir' are distinguished from the Ammonites and Moabites. There is no extra-biblical reference to this or the other battles, but Wolff (1977: 76) allows the possibility that the memory of this event may have helped shape the apocalyptic description of divine judgment in the 'Valley of Jehoshaphat' in Joel 4.2-3. However, no firm dating or literary dependence can be determined. For a possible reconstruction of the invasion course see Dorsey 1991: 148.


127

(iv) Other motifs of blessing. Other Chronistic topoi of blessing include large families, tribute and wealth. These are (apparently) assigned by the writer to those portions of reigns that are judged positively (although, as I argued in Chapter 4, the Chronicler actually treats the theme of blessing much more flexibly than older theories of retribution allow). Notwithstanding the theological purpose of these notices, there are some indications that the author depended on earlier sources for this information. The account of Rehoboam's family (11.18-23) contains names unknown from elsewhere and stands in some tension with other biblical passages, suggesting that an inherited source has been used here.48 The content and style of the report of Jehoshaphat's sons (21.2-4) also probably reflect earlier materials,49 although here it is not used to indicate blessing but to highlight Jehoram's wickedness (cf. v. 13). The details on Abijah's and Joash's families (13.21; 24.3) are too brief to indicate additional sources, although the reference to the otherwise unknown Zechariah in 24.20, along with the variant account of the Aramaean invasion in vv. 23-24, may suggest that the Chronicler had alternative information on Joash.50 The references to tribute and wealth also make good historical sense. Welten does consider briefly 'homage and tribute' as a further topos but holds that the Chronistic style of these passages (17.10-11; 27.5-6) and their association with positively judged kings makes a historical basis to the reports 'highly improbable' (1973: 186). This view is extended by Striibind (1991: 148), who argues that the report in 17.11 that 'some Philistines' and 'the Arabs' brought tribute to Jehoshaphat was composed to establish a parallel between that king's rule and David's through the use of typological motifs (cf. 1 Chron. 14.16-17). However, the parallels are not close, nor is there any reference in the earlier passage to tribute. By contrast, Williamson (1982: 283) holds that the 48. Cf. Williamson 1982: 244. Rudolph's (and Noth's) view that the passage is secondary does not take into consideration the fact that it is meant to signify the consolidation of Rehoboam's rule (cf. v. 17) (though naturally such a large family belongs to the whole of Rehoboam's reign, not just the first three years). 49. E.g. Rudolph, Michaeli, Williamson, Dillard. By contrast, in his discussion of the portrait of Jehoram in 2.21, Begg (1989: 37) attributes virtually every deviation from Kings to the literary creativity of the Chronicler who 'embellished' the Deuteronomic portrait with 'Ahabite' material from Kings and his own theological schema of 'exile and beyond'. 50. Williamson 1982: 323-26; Selman 1994b: 456.

128


guarded opening ('some Philistines'), the localized source of the tribute (an area where Asa had campaigned; cf. 14.13 [E 14]) and its modest nature create a favourable historical impression. The description of Hezekiah's wealth (32.27-29) also accords with the indications of more recent archaeological finds. While the syntagm TODI "icou is Chronistic (cf. 1 Chron. 29.28; 2 Chron. 1.11, 12; 9.22; 17.5; 18.1) and clearly denotes divine blessing, the references to storehouses and military measures (32.5-6) make sense as preparations for war with Sennacherib. Aharoni (1979: 340-46) argues from the dating and distribution of jar handles bearing the Imlk stamp that in the years prior to the invasion Hezekiah was involved in the reorganization of tax-collecting procedures and in the concentration of tribute in kind at four main store cities.51 2. Motifs of Divine Punishment A balanced discussion of sources in Chronicles must also consider the corresponding motifs of divine punishment, which generally takes the form of sickness or death for the individual, and military defeat, diminution of power and exile for the nation. For the majority of these reports the author follows Kings, but he often inserts additional material or substantially rewrites his Vorlage. It must therefore be asked whether these expansions and revisions are purely his own compositions or instead reflect other sources at his disposal. (i) Sickness and death. Three incidents in Chronicles may suggest that sickness is visited on kings for disobedience. One example (Jehoram, 21.18-19) has no parallel in the Vorlage. It is difficult to decide whether the writer's report here reflects an earlier tradition, although most recent discussions agree that the author did draw on other sources for at least parts of his Sondergut in 2 Chronicles 21 (especially vv. 2-4, 1617).52 The other two accounts are expansions of Kings, where the question concerns not the illness but the nature of the preceding interpolated material. 16.7-10 recounts Asa's mistreatment of the prophet Hanani and some of the people, which precedes the king's foot disease. This incident is not otherwise attested and reflects the Chronicler's characteristic language and use of biblical allusions (cf. Jer. 20.2-3; Zech. 4.10). However, as was observed above, it is not certain that the Chronicler 51. See also Miller and Hayes 1986: 353-56. 52. Contra Begg 1989.


129

understood Asa's illness as retribution for his behaviour toward Hanani (contra Rudolph 1955: 248; Dillard 1987: 122-23), so it need not be inferred that the incident was invented to justify a doctrine (thus Wellhausen 1885: 204). Similarly, Uzziah's leprosy is attributed to his cultic trespass (26.1620), but the Chronicler is at one with 2 Kgs 15.5 in affirming that 'Yahweh struck him', an expression that can only denote punishment but is cryptic and unexplained in the Vorlage. Could such an incident have been known to the author of Kings and presupposed by him, as Hobbs (1985: 193) suggests? The historical nature of the Chronicler's account is questioned, in part because it is largely shaped by earlier traditions in which sickness or death is inflicted for certain cultic offences,53 and partly because it is believed to reflect post-exilic cultic regulations (cf. Milgrom 1976: 81). The antiquity of the legitimate use of incense is certainly attested in Deut. 33.10 and 1 Sam. 2.28, but it must be admitted that there is no evidence for extrabiblical sources for this account. Perhaps the Vorlage itself provided the immediate impetus for the narrative, which the Chronicler composed in 'biblical' style. 2 Kgs 15.4 (omitted by Chronicles) reports that under Azariah (Uzziah) 'the people still sacrificed and burned incense on the high places', and then immediately notes that 'Yahweh struck the king so that he was a leper to the day of his death'. The writer's account would then be in the nature of an inference from the Vorlage in which cultic irregularity, divine punishment and leprosy feature together. (ii) Military defeat. The Chronicler's account of Shishak's invasion (12.2-9) purports to give additional historical information, including details of his army (v. 3) and conquests (v. 4). Kitchen (1986: 293-300, 432-47) cites evidence from Shishak's (that is, Shoshenq I's) own record of that campaign which shows that this account is plausible and probably reflects an independent record of these events. However, as Williamson remarks (1982: 246-47), Kitchen also bases some aspects of his reconstruction of the campaign on the Chronicler's account alone, without independent evidence of its veracity. Kitchen considers the size of the chariot-force reasonable, although the number of horsemen may be a scribal error (cf. 2 Chron. 9.25; 1 Kgs 5.6). The description of the army as consisting of 'Libyans, Sukkiim and Nubians (DÎD)' also accords 53. Lev. 10.1-3; Num. 12.10; 16.46-50; 1 Kgs 12.33-34; cf. 2 Kgs 5.36-37 (Gehazi).

130


with the data of the thirteenth-twelfth centuries BCE, with the second group probably representing the Egyptian Tjuk(ten) (Kitchen 1986:295 n. 291). The Chronicler's note that Shishak captured the fortified cities of Judah and came to Jerusalem' (v. 4) is partially confirmed by Shishak's own topographical list at Karnak, which mentions the capture of Aijalon (cf. 11.10) and brings the course of his campaign at least to Gibeon, from where he could have secured the submission of Rehoboam in nearby Jerusalem (Kitchen 1986: 297,446). The attack of 'the Philistines and the Arabs who are near the Cushites (D'tchD)'54 (21.16-17) against Jehoram's household is without parallel in the Vorlage, but this is consistent with the note in 21.8, 10 (= 2 Kgs 8.20, 22) that Libnah and Edom revolted against Judah. The failure to suppress these revolts in the southwest and southeast may have encouraged those groups subjugated by Jehoshaphat (17.11) who were close to these locales to similar rebellion.55 Chronicles contains three other passages recounting military defeat that differ significantly from the Vorlage: the Aramaean attack on Joash (24.23-25); its account of the Syro-Ephraimite war (28.5-21); and Josiah's defeat by Neco (35.20-25). The first passage is closely integrated in themes and language with the preceding unit (vv. 17-21) and illustrates fulfilment of Zechariah's imprecation on Joash and the leaders of Judah for apostasy and murder. The Chronicler may have had an alternative source for his account, which has few points of contact with 2 Kgs 12.17-18, but if so, it has been reworked according to his characteristic vocabulary, literary patterning and outlook. The same is true of his interpretation of the Syro-Ephraimite war, which has little overlap with 2 Kgs 15.37, 16.5 or the other Old Testament references (Isa. 7.19:6; Hos. 5.8-7.16). However, despite the differences in detail and emphasis, the accounts do not contradict each other in substance. Whereas 2 Kgs 16.5 and Isa. 7.1-2 note the failure of the coalition to capture Jerusalem, these armies evidently overran most of northern Judah, and it is this catastrophe which the Chronicler wishes to stress 54. D'ETO here may denote the nomadic people of Cushan, south of Judah (as the locative expression T â suggests), who should be distinguished from the military force of Nubians in 14.8-14 [E 9-15]. It is not necessary to maintain that in the earlier passage a local bedouin incident has been magnified, or indeed that bedouin were involved. 55. Williamson (1982: 308) finds further evidence of a source in the use of 'Jehoahaz' instead of the normal 'Ahaziah' in 21.17 (cf. 22.1).


131

(cf. vv. 5, 8). The precise details in v. 7, otherwise unattested, may also reflect the Chronicler's source.56 Ahaz's appeal to 'the kings of Assyria' (vv. 16-21) relates to circumstances somewhat later than those recounted in 2 Kgs 16.6-7, but the Chronicler's report of Edomite and Philistine activity, 'natural allies against Judah' (Bartlett 1989), and the Philistines' recovery of areas probably taken by Uzziah (26.6), is consistent with the general historical picture.57 3. Religious Activities of Kings The Sondergut in 2 Chronicles 10-36 purports to relate a great deal of additional information about the religious activities of the kings of Judah, their reforms and apostasies. Only a limited engagement with the question of sources is undertaken here. Reform of the cult and instruction of the people are briefly considered by Welten as further topoi in the Chronistic Sondergut (1973: 180-85). Although he concedes the possibility of pre-exilic materials underlying these passages, he considers them to be most probably the author's own composition, since they are confined to positively judged reigns (or periods thereof) and are described in association with other (unhistorical) topoi of blessing. Nevertheless, it may be argued that these passages preserve some indications of earlier sources, and should not be attributed purely to the author's own composition. Our first example is the extended report of Asa's religious reform (15.8-18).58 This pericope is best taken as an independent doublet of 56. Rudolph 1955: 289. The description of Elkanah as -f?Dn nroa does not serve a theological purpose, and is probably an indication of a source. 57. Cf. Williamson 1982: 347-48, and the bibliography cited there, and Bartlett 1989: 127-28, 140-41, for a discussion of Edomite and Philistine hostility to Judah, and archaeological evidence of Edomite extension of influence into the Negev of Judah. 58. The chronology of Asa's reign is a complex matter, on which a number of reconstructions have been proposed, each of which is problematic. Rudolph (1952) considered the chronological notes of these chapters confused or arbitrary, the product of the author's own theological creativity, whereas Thiele took them as historical, but related 15.19 and 16.1 (in tension with 1 Kgs 15.33; 16.8), not to Asa's reign but to the division of the monarchy. This harmonization is rejected by Dillard as anomalous to the whole practice of Old Testament chronology (1987: 12425). A mediating position is suggested by Williamson (1982: 255-58), who allows that events have been reordered for theological reasons, but gives some credence to the chronological notices (though he thinks the Chronicler has deviated from his source in 15.19; 16.1).

132


14.2-4 [E 3-5].59 Whereas the earlier passage is an elaboration of the Vorlage (probably influenced by 2 Kgs 18.4), an alternative source underlies this account. Specific mention is made of the extirpation of idolatry from the territory under Asa's control, the repair of the altar of burnt offering, and a national act of covenant renewal. While these could be simply conventional details, the passage also refers in v. 8 to reform in 'the towns which he [Asa] had captured in the hill country of Ephraim'. There is no antecedent reference for this note, which thus stands in some tension with the Chronicler's general depiction of Asa's reign as peaceful (cf. 15.19). Williamson (1982: 270) argues that 'the Chronicler was here drawing on an independent source which at this point he did not fully harmonise with his wider presentation'. Secondly, the Chronicler's Sondergut attributes popular instruction in the Law (17.7-9) and judicial reform (19.4-11) to Jehoshaphat. The relationship of these passages to each other and their historical basis are also disputed, but there can be little doubt that pre-Chronistic material is reflected here.60 Although v. 4 is clearly the writer's own composition, it does not sit easily with the Deuteronomistically couched material in vv. 5-11, which embraces wider legal and administrative concerns than the writer's cultic interests (as v. 4b suggests) and lacks the characteristic paraenetic vocabulary of royal speeches in Chronicles.61 Thirdly, the account of Hezekiah's passover (2 Chron. 30) has often been considered fictitious, written up on the basis of Josiah's passover. However, it also reports a number of irregularities: the date and duration of the festival, and the participation of cultically impure persons (vv. 1, 23, 17-20). It has long been observed that a writer such as the Chronicler, who is usually considered meticulous in cultic matters, would 59. So Rudolph, Williamson, De Vries. 60. The passages are sometimes considered doublets. Their historical basis was rejected by Wellhausen (1885: 191) as an aetiological legend based on the name tDD27in% with numerous anachronisms); of late, scepticism has been expressed by Ackroyd (1973: 143) and De Vries (1989: 322, 'the combination of sacral and secular courts [... ] expresses ChrH's theocratic tendency'). However, De Vries fails to interact with Whitelam's arguments (1979: 185-206) for the historical basis of this system. The evidence that 17.7-9 reflects an earlier source is slight, but cf. Williamson 1982: 282. 61. Williamson (1982: 287-89); Dillard 1987: 147 on the language; though presumably v. lOd (*]Xp;|iDeton) is the Chronicler's own composition. Throntveit (1987: 47-49) also notes the anomalous form of this speech compared to others in the work, but fails to attribute this to non-Chronistic sources.


133

hardly have invented such details, nor applied them to his idealized figure Hezekiah.62 Selman (1994b: 494) also notes a number of differences in practice and detail between this report and 35.1-19 (perhaps the Chronicler's own stylized representation63) which argue against literary dependence. 3. Summary and Conclusion This chapter has drawn together some of the more positive findings of source criticism of Chronicles from Rudolph and recent Englishlanguage scholarship, supplemented by more recent indications from archaeology. It has interacted with Welten's arguments as a detailed modern example of the older critical view that the Chronistic Sondergut contains little authentic pre-exilic material. The compass of Welten's study was extended to include further topoi of reward and the corresponding motifs of punishment. The historiographical and literary assumptions that underlie Welten's work were questioned, including his premiss that Chronistic style and outlook create a presumption that a particular section is simply the writer's own composition. Furthermore, a closer reading of certain sections shows that the author was not concerned to enhance the personal standing of certain kings, such as Rehoboam, Abijah and Manasseh, about whom he communicates additional information. Not all the additional material could be assigned the same critical value, but it must be admitted that the full extent of the Chronicler's use of sources cannot be settled. Some of the material is of a generalized, stereotypical nature, while other parts are narrated according to 'scriptural' models rather than evident extrabiblical traditions. However, it is unlikely that the writer freely invented his accounts, and underlying kernels of tradition are still to be found, even where he has clearly composed according to literary conventions, such as his 'Yahweh war' 62. Moriarty 1965; also the commentaries of Williamson, Dillard and Selman follow this line, but disagree over the precise nature of the pre-Chronistic material and the festival. Segal (1963: 16-19, 226-30) assigned 2 Chron. 30 to a later hand than 2 Chron. 35, holding its differences to reflect 'a gradual process of development' toward a popular ceremony. However, the language and interests are clearly Chronistic. De Vries (1989: 264, 379) discerns a Chronistic 'Festival Schema' in this and other accounts of worship (2 Chron. 7.8-9; 15.9-15; 35.1-19). 63. So Segal 1963: 14-16; Williamson 1982: 403-404.

134


narratives. It may be added that for the Chronicler such a style would have been his most natural form of expression. It appears, too, that the Chronicler worked within the constraints of his sources, even where they did not accord well with his dominant outlook (cf. 25.5, 13). In all, the range of pericopae relating both rewards and punishments that can be fairly attributed to earlier sources may be considerably extended from the minimal core allowed by Welten. These indications of the writer's working method lead me to conclude that Welten's description of Chronicles as a 'free, parabolic depiction of history' ('freie parabolische Geschichtsdarstellung') (1973: 206) misconstrues the character of this work and the Chronicler's understanding of his task. Although it was not the writer's primary concern to recount history (even a history of the foundation of the cult), he did retain evident historiographical concerns, recounting his understanding of the preexilic past and working within the constraints of his sources. The concluding chapter of this study will draw out some of the implications of the Chronicler's uses of history.

Chapter 6 ESCHATOLOGICAL THOUGHT IN CHRONICLES:

A SURVEY AND CRITIQUE OF RESEARCH

1. Introduction This chapter surveys and evaluates the ways in which the controverted subject of eschatology in Chronicles has been handled in research, as a preliminary step to formulating an integrative approach to this question. This latter concern is taken up in Chapters 7 and 8. While the importance of the Chronicler's doctrine of retribution is universally recognized, there is no consensus over the nature of the writer's eschatological outlook. Dillard (1987: 2) remarks that scholarly opinion on the subject is divided between two extremes and a host of mediating positions: on the one hand, many find the author's messianic/eschatological expectations central to the book, while others view the Chronicler as espousing the view that the purposes of God were so realized in the restoration community as to leave little if any place for eschatological expectation.

The disagreement turns in part on the definition of 'eschatology'. Mowinckel (1958: 125-26), for example, has defined this as a complex of ideas that looks for the end of the present world order through a cosmic catastrophe and the ushering in of a different and suprahistorical order by the power of God. Nothing, in that sense, is really applicable to Chronicles, nor indeed to most of the Old Testament. In a broader sense, however, eschatology is used by Old Testament scholars to denote not the suprahistorical termination of things but (more loosely) the expectation of better things to come, a future state brought about by God which is marked by 'the introduction of a situation discontinuous with the current evil one, the consummation of the divine purpose' (Bright 1977: 19). It is this second definition which forms the basis of my discussion, rather than the cosmological vision which surfaces in

136


only a few Old Testament passages, particularly the apocalyptic chapters of Isaiah 24-27, Daniel and Zechariah. For Chronicles the question turns on the status and future of Judah, subsisting as a small temple state within the Persian empire. It must be asked what expectations, if any, the writer entertained for its subject people, the House of David, and the land of Israel. Even within this restricted ambit, a wide diversity of views is held. At one extreme, Hanson (1975; 1986) sees the Chronicler's sights set firmly on the cult rather than the dynasty.1 Mason (1990) also insists that the temple rather than the Davidic dynasty has a 'lasting soteriological function' for the writer.2 By contrast, Im (1985) claims that the Chronicler's ideal Davidbild is a depiction of post-exilic expectation and that the writer looked forward to a dynastic restoration.3 Such conflicting interpretations point to the continuing necessity in research to investigate this dimension of the work. The most significant treatments of this aspect of the writer's thought are examined below. It will be seen that disagreement has arisen partly from differences of focus (for example, by concentrating on the presentation of David or 1. 'Hope resided not in realities to be revealed by a Messiah who would come in the future, but in the careful observation and presentation of the cultic institutions revealed by God to David, handed down by the priests and kings of Judah [... ] and finding new life under the leadership of the Zadokite high priests once the true remnant had returned to Jerusalem' (1986: 301). In this later work Hanson presents much the same view of Chronicles' (anti-)eschatological outlook as in The Dawn of Apocalyptic (1975), but now accepts Cross's theory of multiple editions of Chronicles (cf. Chapter 1 above), that the 'Restorationist' 'Chr 1' was expanded by priestly circles into a final edition ('Chr 3') which was conciliatory toward protoapocalyptic circles yet firmly 'theocratic' (i.e. anti-eschatological). 2. Mason 1990: 32: '[The Chronicler appears] little concerned with the longrange issue of the dynasty itself. The temple survives the exile by its rebuilding, and the divinely appointed function of the dynasty finds itself fulfilled in the emergence of the temple community. Over this community God now reigns, exercising through priest and cult personnel the rule which was once exercised through kings, although seldom perfectly.' 3. Im 1985: 184: 'The Jewish community could not be fully content with the modest situation of the post-exilic theocracy, because it lacked the kingdom of David. It expected the restoration of the kingdom and a Davidic king who could bring this expectation to fulfilment' ('Die jiidische Gemeinde konnte mit der bescheidenen Lage der nachexilischen Theokratie nicht ganz zufrieden sein, weil ihr das Konigtum Davids fehlte. Sie erwartete die Wiederherstellung des Konigtums und einen davidischen Konig, der diese Erwartung in Erfullung bringen konnte').

6. Eschatological Thought in Chronicles

137

Solomon), as well as from conflicting definitions (e.g. the scope of terms such as 'eschatology', 'theocracy' and 'messianism') and judgments on the unity, dating and extent of the Chronicler's work. 2. Chronicles as a Non-eschatological Work Rudolph established the basic lines of a non-eschatological interpretation of the work, with an approach which has been supplemented by sociologically based studies in recent years. According to this view, the writer believed that the divine purpose was fully realized in the temple community of his time. Chronicles differed from the prophetic conception of theocracy by the virtual absence from its outlook of eschatological expectations (1955: xxiii). Undertones of the prophetic view could still be detected in the stress on the eternal duration of the Davidic covenant and the reference to the TH "ion (2 Chron. 6.42), but these notes were sparse and indistinct (in contrast, for example, to the clear expectation expressed in Jer. 33.14-26). This paucity of emphasis indicated that such a hope had little contemporary significance for the Chronicler. By contrast, the description of the post-exilic Jewish community in Nehemiah 12.44-13.3 represented in itself the realization of the theocratic ideal for the Chronicler. This passage describes how the liturgical services of the second temple were re-established, portions were assigned to the Levites and Aaronites, and those of mixed desent were 'separated out from Israel' (13.3). According to Rudolph, the Chronicler did not look beyond this state of affairs, but rather affirmed it as the 'ideal', in which there was no further need of an eschatological hope.4 Rudolph's interpretation at this point was challenged by Brunet (1959). In keeping with the virtual consensus of the time, Brunet accepted the common authorship of Chronicles with Ezra-Nehemiah. 4. Rudolph 1955: xxiii: 'The community could get over the lack of a Davidic dynasty, so long as the second pillar of the theocracy, the Jerusalem temple, stood firm (...). and the soteriological significance of the Davidic House was presently limited to the fact that David and Solomon had established the ordinances for the temple cult, on which the acceptable worship of the present community was based' ('DaB die davidische Dynastic fehlte, lieB sich verschmerzen, solange die zweite Sa'ule der Theokratie, der Tempel in Jerusalem so feststand [...] und die heilsgeschichtliche Bedeutung des Hauses Davids beschrankte sich [... ] derzeit darauf, daB David und Salomo fur den Tempelkult die Ordnungen geschaffen hatten, auf denen der gottgefallige Gottesdienst der gegenwartigen Gemeinde beruhte').

138


Along with Rudolph, he rejected Noordtzij's (1940) claim that the Chronicler intended to show the failure of the theocracy, but against Rudolph, he insisted on the abiding significance of the Davidic dynasty for the Chronicler.5 Brunet also disputed Rudolph's interpretation of Nehemiah 12.44-13.3. This depicted a situation that was not yet the ideal anticipated by Deutero-Isaiah, for the people of God were still under foreign domination and occupying only a 'faible partie' of their inheritance (cf. Neh. 9.34-37). Brunet thus discerned that Ezra-Nehemiah portrayed a situation that was as yet incomplete.6 However, he argued (rather implausibly) that the silence over the dynastic question in that portion of 'the Chronicler's work' was an indication, not that the dynasty had no place in its outlook, but rather that the Restoration was slowly making its way to that end (1959: 396). No real evidence was adduced for this claim. This conflict in interpretation is an instance of the difficulties raised by the supposed 'Chronicler's History Work', which are satisfactorily resolved only by distinguishing the authorship of Chronicles from Ezra-Nehemiah.7 Rudolph highlighted two distinctive features of his non-eschatological understanding of theocracy in Chronicles. First, as we have noted, he interpreted the work as teaching that the Jewish community of its own day (rather than any messianic or royal figure) was now the embodiment of the theocracy.8 Such an understanding sharply distinguished Chronicles from the 'essential Old Testament conception of theocracy' (1955: xxiv), and in this respect it stood theologically 'at the edge of the canon'. 5. Brunet 1959: 398: 'The Davidic dynasty is an essential and permanent element of the theocratic economy' ('La dynastic davidique est un element essentiel et permanent de 1'economie theocratique'). 6. Cf. also more recently Williamson 1977a: 135: 'Certainly, the prayers of Ezra 9 and Neh. 1 and 9 give no indication of a situation beyond which no advance is contemplated, and the work as a whole seems to tail off in Neh. 13 without any suggestion that the problems and abuses have been finally settled.' See also Chapter 9 below. 7. As was noted in Chapter 1, whereas a Davidic interest is evident throughout Chronicles, it is virtually absent from Ezra-Nehemiah. 8. Riley (1993: 185-201) develops a similar idea that 'the cultic *np constitutes Israel as the nation that is heir to the Davidic heritage' (p. 191) and Davidic covenant (see especially pp. 196-97), but without recourse to Rudolph's (questionable) interpretation of Neh. 12.44-13.3 (Riley distinguishes authorship of the works). These arguments are disputed in Chapters 7 and 8 below.


139

Secondly, Rudolph maintained that the Chronicler showed little interest in the religious fate of the Gentiles, because he was preoccupied in debate with the Samaritans over the legitimacy of the Jerusalem cult. Chronicles was seen to be focused wholly on the present concerns of the cultic community, without a futurist, prophetic perspective. The influence of Rudolph's views rests partly on the way they were adopted and developed by Ploger (1957; ET 1968). For Ploger Chronicles represented one of the two main currents of theological thought which he believed characterized the post-exilic period. Far from being united and peaceful, the Jewish community in the Persian and Hellenistic eras was essentially divided into 'theocratic' and 'eschatological' circles, from which latter group, it is held, apocalyptic eventually developed. These circles were marked by radically different conceptions of Israel and the hopes of restoration. A particular selfunderstanding of Israel was reflected in the Priestly Writing, which, according to Ploger (1968: 40), contained 'the seeds of a noneschatological view of history in the Old Testament': Israel as the my at Sinai represented the goal of God's ways with humanity (p. 32). As a community constituted and ruled according to cultic and religious principles rather than political ones, it experienced God's rule directly and was no longer subject to changing political fortunes. Such a view reflected a fundamental change in the structure of Israel from nation to cultic community, one which rendered superfluous a historical eschatology. Chronicles was said to be oriented to that same understanding of Israel, with an important distinction: whereas the terminus a quo in P for this new conception of Israel is the Sinaitic covenant, in Chronicles Israel is instead constituted by the Davidic covenant. Ploger attributed this difference in presentation to the author's assumed controversy with the Samaritans: it was a means of affirming the legitimacy of the Jerusalem cult against rival claims. The Chronicler's 'rejection of the Samaritan heresy' and his 'refusal to entertain eschatological expectations of any sort' (p. 41) were said to account for the polemical side of his work. Ploger thus affirmed Rudolph's understanding of Nehemiah 12.44-13.3 as the climax of the Chronicler's work by setting the writer's work within a larger framework, the supposed theological 'currents' of the post-exilic period.9 9. Rudolph 1955: viii: Neh. 12.44-13.3 depicts 'the realization of the theocracy on the soil of Israel' ('die Verwirklichung der Theokratie auf dem Boden Israels').

140


Despite the influence of Ploger's theory,10 it faces serious objections. His positive interpretation of Nehemiah 12.44-13.3, and the assumption of a unified 'Chronicler's History Work' are both very questionable. Further, the Samaritan schism as a background for the Chronicler's work is usually rejected today (although it still has its supporters11). Ploger's understanding of P and its relationship with Chronicles is also problematic. Rather less consensus exists now than did previously over the dating and provenance of P, and it may be significant that Chronicles does not actually designate the community by the common P expression mu (except 2 Chron. 5.6 = 1 Kgs 8.5) but uniformly prefers bnp. Other differences in vocabulary may be cited which render more tenuous the older critical assumption that the Chronicler consciously worked with P (as a self-subsisting document) in 'revising' the pre-exilic history.12 The interpretation of P as anti-eschatological is also increasingly disputed, even where the traditional view of its provenance is accepted. Zimmerli (1968: 66-81) and Ackroyd (1968: 102) both observe that P is more than a collection of laws: it is also a history of progressive revelation which is in no sense closed to the future, but rather signifies for God's people the 'the possibility of a future, the opening up of hope' (Zimmerli 1968: 73). More specifically, Lohfink (1978: 216) argues that the basic aim of P as a whole was to engender hope in the exilic community. Its communicative intention differs from Deutero-Isaiah; that work grounds its message in prophetic eschatology, whereas P is focused in the past and communicates its message indirectly. However, 10. For details of those who have followed Ploger in general, see Williamson 1977a: 133. Ploger's views are developed by Steck (1968), though in a way that makes the thesis of a 'Chronicler's History Work' more difficult to maintain; cf. the criticisms by Striibind 1991: 41. 11. The Samaritan hypothesis was proposed by Torrey and Noth; it is rejected by Coggins, Williamson and Japhet, but accepted by Becker and Oeming. 12. This is an instance of the numerous lexical differences on the cult between P and Chronicles. These differences form part of the argument of those Israeli scholars who follow Kaufmann in seeing P as a pre-exilic work. Cf. especially Hurvitz (1974), who maintains that the linguistic differences between P on the one hand and Ezekiel, Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah on the other, are due to the chronological distinction between early BH and LBH. Alternatively, it has been doubted whether P ever existed as an independent document; cf. Wenham 1987: xxxi-ii, for survey and bibliography. However this issue should be decided, it is better to assume that the Chronicler was working with a text that already united J, E and P (Oeming 1990: 76).


141

in Lohfink's view, both works have the same motived He maintains that the real theme of P is to be found not in the cult but in the promised land of Canaan, which the exiles will regain once the sinful generation which caused the exile has died out. Whatever the precise relationship between P and Chronicles, this last point is at least suggestive of the Chronicler's concerns: it will be argued in the following chapter that the writer also maintains an interest in the land and its secure possession and in fact holds out hopes for its fuller restoration. Such a concern is apparently absent from Ploger's interpretation of the post-exilic community, now no longer a nation with geopolitical concerns and developing into a religious community founded exclusively on cult and law. Such a goal is said to make further hopes of restoration pointless (Ploger 1968: 43). Hanson's work (1975; 1986) is also concerned with the theological currents that developed in post-exilic Judah. It is independent of Ploger's discussion, but parallels it in a number of respects, and an antieschatological interpretation of Chronicles is fundamental to his historical reconstruction. Hanson maintains that from the beginning of the postexilic period there were two distinct groups, eschatologically minded 'visionaries' who were disciples of Deutero-Isaiah, and a theocratic (or hierocratic) party, associated with the restoration programme of Ezekiel. (Ploger traces the division in the community to a much later period.) The hierocratic party was dominated by the Zadokite priesthood and stood in unbroken continuity with the ruling classes of the temple prior to the exile. The visionaries opposed the hierocratic group because it rejected 'prophetic-eschatological perspectives' and had formed a compromising coalition with a foreign pagan power. The hierocratic party triumphed in the ensuing struggle. With the passage of time it proved more accommodating to the 'visionaries', and 'the Chronicler's work', according to Hanson, reflected this spirit: it was a late attempt (c. 400 BCE) 'by the hierocratic tradition to heal the wounds of past controversy by presenting their program in a more conciliatory guise' (1975: 273). Such a motive is said to explain the differences between 'the Chronicler's work' and the 'Zadokite revision of Ezekiel'. These include the writer's interest in the Davidic dynasty and the adoption of elements of 'Yahweh war' tradition, perhaps 'to attract

13. See Brett 199la for a discussion of 'communicative intention' and 'motive' in the Pentateuch.

142


the dissident prophetic element which held to the visionary concept of the Divine Warrior' (1975: 273). Nevertheless, the Chronicler's outlook is non-eschatological: by Nehemiah 10 he has described the re-establishment of the people around the temple cult. This represents the fulfilment of the historical process the writer has been recounting. The work does not look for a future eschaton, for Israel's eschaton has been realized in the restoration of the institutions long ago established by David but lost' (1975: 277). Like Rudolph and Ploger, Hanson presupposes the existence of a 'Chronicler's History Work' in his reconstruction. His interpretative frame for the work (the early emergence of apocalyptic in a community polarized over the eschatological question) is, of course, open to the criticism that it is speculative and draws one-sidedly on (rather contestable) sociological theory relating to the behaviour and ideology of religious groups. It may be argued that he has over-simplified the degree to which diverse views (e.g. on eschatology) can be maintained within one sociological group, such as the temple hierocracy. The actual function and treatment of such elements as the Davidic dynasty and the 'Yahwen war' motif must also be considered carefully in determining the Chronicler's outlook,14 and in my view Hanson has not examined them closely enough. In his later work (1986) Hanson defends the same interpretation of the Chronicler's Tendenz, although he now accepts Cross's compositional theory of multiple editions. This shift introduces further difficulties into his reconstruction.15

14. Cf. Chapters 7 and 8 below. 15. For Cross's view see Chapter 1 and below. As noted above, Hanson now believes (1986) that the postulated 'Chr 1' was part of the 'Zadokite restoration program', which differed sharply from the visionaries over their understanding of the temple: whereas 1 Chron. 28.2 affirmed that the temple is the 'footstool of our God', the 'proto-apocalyptic' text Isa. 66.1-2 repudiated the temple. However, Westermann (1969: 412-13) refutes any idea of polemic against temple building here. Moreover, reference to the 'footstool' in 1 Chron. 28.2 is probably to the ark (cf. Ps. 132.7, but contrast Haran 1978: 256). A difficulty for Hanson in accepting Cross's recensional theory arises from the distinct purpose which Cross and others discern in 'Chr 1', its supposed association with a 'messianic movement' centred on Zerubbabel and the restoration of Judah according to dyarchic rule (Cross 1975: 15; see below). This 'restorationist' theory holds that the work was employed (necessarily with much revision and supplementation) in the very different circumstances of c. 400 BCE. Hanson also cites a number of texts that he believes reflect a later, conciliatory spirit


143

Caquot (1966) has propounded the non-eschatological interpretation of Chronicles in the greatest detail, and his historical and textual arguments have received renewed attention in Mason's study of post-exilic exegetical and teaching methods (1990: 31-32). These may be summarized as follows. 1.

2.

3.

4.

Chronicles is the work of hierocratic circles in the early Hellenistic period (332-323 BCE). This setting best explains its presentation and ideology. Achaemenid rule had granted the Jews two centuries of relative tranquility, during which time the high priest had been affirmed as representative of the nation, and the temple and the cult, 'the essential legacy' of the nation's past, had been restored. The 'davidisme' of Chronicles (see below) is not intended to evoke the expectation of an exalted Davidic figure who will appear at the end of time. There is no messianism in Chronicles; moreover, it is not David, the man of wars, but Solomon, 'the wise and peaceful king', who is idealized in the interest of 'a hierocracy that is basically satisfied with the present' (1966: 120). Solomon is presented as 'the type of sovereign best suited to appeal to the Greeks' (p. 116).16 Solomon's essential work is finished with the construction of the temple. Caquot remarks on 1 Chron. 28.20 (12 -pur tfy\ mrr rra rrros r\z>*h>n ^D rrbzh: 'It matters little what will happen afterwards: for the Chronicler the work of the dynasty is finished when the temple is built' (p. 118). Other texts are said to support this conclusion. Til -ion (2 Chron. 6.42) is a subjective genitive, referring (in the spirit of Psalm 132) to the pains David took in establishing the cult, rather than an objective genitive referring to the Davidic covenant. 'If there is a future perspective in these verses, it concerns not the Davidic dynasty but the steriological function of the Temple' (p. 119). The Chronicler has suppressed most of

toward the Levites (1986: 302), but these surely belong to the primary layer of the composition. 16. Caquot (1966: 11) takes the note on Jaddua in Neh. 12.11 as the terminus a quo for the redaction of Toeuvre du Chroniste'. Bickerman places the work earlier but finds a similar perspective: the tendency of the Chronicler 'is to recommend a kind of political quietism which should please the court of Susa as well as the High Priest's mansion in Jerusalem' (1966: 30). Hanson reflects similar views.

144

Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles the texts from Kings concerning the preservation of a 'lamp' for David or divine action promised 111 ]scb (1 Kgs 11.13, 32, 36; 19.34; 20.6; only 2 Kgs 8.19 [= 2 Chron. 21.7] is retained). This indicates how little the Chronicler was interested in the Davidic line once its cultic work had been accomplished. The statement in 2 Chron. 13.5 ('Don't you know that Yahweh, the God of Israel, has given the kingship over Israel to David and his sons forever by a covenant of salt?') is an affirmation of Abijah's legitimacy over against the would-be usurper Jeroboam, rather than a profession of the Chronicler's faith.

Caquot's position depends in part on a historical view that can only be touched on here. However, it is doubtful to what extent the later Achaemenid period was marked by general peacefulness, especially in the western extremities of the empire. The most recent researches indicate how troubled some of this period was,17 while Ezra 4.6-23 testifies to the opposition and interference the Jews experienced in the reigns of Xerxes (486-465) and Artaxerxes (465^424). Further, while it is true that the high priest came to assume the role of representative of the people vis-a-vis the imperial powers, the Chronicler has little to say on this figure, but concentrates instead much more on the activities of the kings and Levites. The writer's own view of the development in status and function of the high priest may instead be determined from the internal evidence of his work.18 Caquot's grammatical arguments may be disputed. ~iu in 1 Chron. 28.20 does not require the interpretation of 'until' in the temporally exclusive sense. Rather the sense is durative: it concerns the promise of divine help to Solomon throughout the period of building. The question of a subsequent, abiding divine presence remains open. Barr has pointed to uses of ID in adverbial phrases which are not temporally exclusive;19 the durative sense (which is similar to the Aramaic 1JJ) is attested also in Judg. 3.26; 1 Sam. 14.19; and 2 Kgs 9.22. As I argued in Chapter 4, the apogee of the Solomonic narrative (2 Chron. 9) is clearly intended to show the persistence of Yahweh's blessing upon the king throughout his reign, following the completion of the temple. 17. For recent discussions, cf. especially Cook 1983; Eph'al 1988: 139-64; Frye 1984; Gershevitch 1985. 18. This point is examined in Chaper 8 below. 19. Barr 1982. Barr also mentions Qoh. 12.1, 2, 6: Prov. 8.26 (p. 184). Cf. also 1 Sam. 7.12 (Thus far has Yahweh helped us').


145

The meaning of ~ni non continues to attract scholarly attention.20 In an earlier study Caquot maintained that the expression denoted '"David's faithful works" [i.e. his temple preparations], the demonstrations of his loyalty to God, and not the favours accorded by God to David' (1965: 59).21 Caquot denied a direct dependence by the Chronicler on Isaiah 55.3b, but held that even this earlier passage had no messianic import: 'The originality of Isaiah 55 lies in seeing the guarantee of the new covenant in David's sacred deeds, i.e. establishing the divine residence in Jerusalem.'22 Williamson (1978) has presented a strong rebuttal of this interpretation. He disputes Caquot's use of the versional evidence and his understanding of ~m non, and points to Acts 13.34 as evidence that in the first century CE at least the expression was understood as an objective genitive. Caquot also notes that D'Ton elsewhere in Chronicles (2 Chron. 32.32; 35.26) denotes 'opera pia'. However, these examples do not concern the precise expression Til non, which is best taken as an allusion to Isaiah 55.3 and the Davidic covenant.23 The Chronicler's suppression of "in pa1? from the Vorlage is not intended to deny the continuing validity of the Davidic covenant. Caquot does not take into account the actual ideological and compositional reasons the writer had for these omissions. Most of the references occur in 1 Kings 11 (cf. vv. 13, 32, 36) in a pericope which is omitted, probably because of its presentation of Solomon and the division of the kingdom. The omission of the oracle of 2 Kgs 19.34 (= Isa. 37.35) from Chronicles is due to the author's reworking of the Vorlage to present Hezekiah rather than Isaiah as the central figure, indeed, in 2 Chron. 32.7-8 as the mouthpiece of Isaiah's own oracles. Similar reasons account for the omission of 2 Kgs 20.6, which is part of a longer passage (2 Kgs 20.1-11) radically abbreviated by the Chronicler. On the other hand, Caquot passes over the Chronicler's added references to the Davidic covenant in 2 Chron. 21.7; 22.3.24 20. See most recently Kaiser 1989 and the bibliography cited there. 21. ' "les oeuvres pies de David", les manifestations de sa loyaute envers Dieu, et non les faveurs accordees par Dieu a David.' 22. 'L'originalite d'Isaie 55 est de voir la garantie de la nouvelle alliance dans les oeuvres saintes de David, c'est-a-dire 1'etablissement a Jerusalem de la residence divine' (Caquot 1965: 55). However, Westermann (1969: 283-84) insists that Isa. 55.3 denotes 'the reliable tokens of grace vouchsafed to David'. 23. Contra, most recently, Riley 1993: ch. 3. 24. See the following chapter on the significance of these additions.

146


Other scholars holding to a traditional understanding of the 'Chronicler's History' (i.e. a complex comprising Chronicles-EzraNehemiah) also argue for its essentially non-eschatological character, in which no role is envisaged for the Davidic house. Myers concludes from the absence of messianism in Ezra-Nehemiah that 'the messianic hope [in Chronicles] is more apparent than real' (1965: Ixxxv). Similarly, Becker (1977; ET 1980) holds that Chronicles comes from a time of 'messianological vacuum'. Its hopes of salvation are not linked to a royal figure of Davidic lineage, and it is a mistake to read 'its glorification of David and Solomon, as though the Chronicler were writing history from prophetic perspectives to evoke the messianic kingdom' (1980: 80). The same views are represented in his more recent commentary (1986: 9).25 Japhet's work (1977; ET 1989) differs from the examples discussed above in separating Chronicles from Ezra-Nehemiah and reading it on its own terms. Several features of her interpretation call for comment. First, she finds a unified theological outlook in the work which reflects a 'distinct conceptualization which is non-messianic by its very nature' (1989: 499). This interpretation is structurally related to her rather rationalistic understanding of retribution in the work (sc., the absolutization of divine justice in the world), and appears to owe much to Eichrodt's discussion of the Priestly attitude to 'the problem of human existence in time' (Eichrodt 1961: 424-30). Eichrodt argued that P and Chronicles both looked upon history not eschatologically but 'as the unfolding of a cosmic order planned for permanence and perfection1 (1961: 425, emphasis original). P depicted a world of 'carefully calculated architectonic perfection', of which the pivotal events were the manifestation of the law and the erection of the temple. The Chronicler expressed this view of history differently, retrojecting God's election perpetually from Adam onward (1961: 425): This view would seem to be related to the philosophical interpretation of the world which also sees truth as something constant and eternal, only revealed more and more in the course of history. Once God's full 25. 'David and Solomon do not have any meaning for the Chronicler for their own sake, not even as a messianic type, but only in so far as their time represents a present opportunity of salvation for Israel, which in any case is bound less to the kings than to the temple' ('David und Salomo haben fiir [den Chronisten] keine Bedeutung um ihrer selbst willen, auch nicht als messianischer Typos, sondern nur insofern ihre Zeit eine jeweilige Heilsbefindlichkeit Israels darstellt, die im ubrigen weniger an die Konige als an den Tempel gebunden ist.').


147

revelation has been attained, however, all that is to be seen in history is the working out of permanent ordinances established once for all; gradually all obstacles will be overcome, but no room is left for the occurrence of anything really new.

This is the root of Japhet's conviction that the work is essentially noneschatological, and her understanding of the work's retributive doctrine. Japhet buttresses this interpretation by finding in the work a 'positive anthropology', the innate human capacity to obey God's will. She allows that the work does entertain a 'hope of redemption', the restoration of the land and Israel's past glories, but sees this confidence grounded not in acts of divine intervention but in the given order of the world: 'The power to realize these hopes rests with the people; they need only follow God's ways and observe His commandments' (1989: 503). Finally, Japhet denies that the Davidic covenant is a central concern of the work (1989: 497): 'It rarely appears, and when it appears, it does so in passages of minor importance. Nathan's prophecy does indeed occupy a prominent position in Chronicles; however, it is stressed in texts dealing with the construction of the Temple.' Each of these claims is open to question. First, as we have seen already, more recent writers reject the view that P reflects so fixed and static a view of the world, and emphasize instead its forward-looking dimensions. Although the cult celebrates Yahweh's present dominion over the world, it also anticipates it in some respects. Secondly, Japhet treats the work more from a 'systematic' than a narratological perspective, and so arguably does not give due weight to those frequent passages where Yahweh does intervene to reverse the effects of human sin, in keeping with his promises to his people (2 Chron. 7.14). As a result, Japhet understates the degree to which the work is really concerned with describing active divine grace in the history of Israel rather than a putative providential world order, in which human beings choose and act freely. The Chronicler notes that even the human will needs divine assistance to obey God's commandments (1 Chron. 22.12; 2 Chron. 30.12). Japhet's treatment of the Davidic covenant (1989: 453-57) is confined to two passages which make explicit mention of a ma with David, 2 Chron. 13.5 and 21.7, but this ignores the considerable importance this theme has elsewhere (including its expansive treatment in non-synoptic passages) where the term ma is not used but the concept is clearly implied.26 26. Cf. 1 Chron. 17.10-14; 22.6-13; 28.2-10; 2 Chron. 7.18; 13.8; 23.3. The

148


3. Eschatological Interpretations of Chronicles The contrary trend in scholarship is represented by the following range of views, which are considered in their chronological order of appearance. They are loosely called eschatological because (with one exception) they focus on the abiding significance of the Davidic covenant and dynasty within the post-exilic community. 1. 'Davidism' in Chronicles The dominant approach among Christian interpreters has been to read the Chronicler's Davidic narrative not historically but typologically, as if the writer were really prefiguring an exalted messianic figure in his portrayal of David. The main arguments for this reading are the form of the dynastic oracle in Chronicles (1 Chron. 17.10-14, especially v. 11), and the author's supposed idealization of David. The form and significance of the dynastic oracle is considered more closely in the following chapter. Here it may be noted that Keil (1988 [1870]: 223-24) took the wording of v. 11 (7333 rrrr -itzto j-iro fini HN), which diverges from 2 Sam. 7.12 (•poo t«r), to refer not to Solomon but to a more distant descendant, the Messiah. Keil is followed in this interpretation by von Rad (1930: 119-32) and Im (1985: 120-24). The omission of passages which reflect badly on David (for example, the Bathsheba narrative and the dispute over the succession in 2 Samuel 11-20), and the presentation of David as the zealous promoter of the cult, are the principal basis of the view that the Chronicler has idealized David as a type of his messianic expectation. This view was strongly expressed by Rothstein and Ha'nel (1927: x).27 Von Rad concurred in this judgment, holding that the suppression of 2 Sam. 7.14b ('When he commits iniquity, I will chastise him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men') indicated that this king would stand outside 'the polar tension of judgment and grace' and signified 'something basically new', hinting obliquely at a form of end-time expectation (1930: 123).28 fundamental significance of the Davidic covenant for the Chronicler is examined more fully in the following chapter. 27. The Chronicler's 'Idealbild' of David is intended to evoke 'the type of the Davidic shoot of the end-time..., whom prophecy since Isaiah connected with every virtue' ('der Typus des DavidsproBes der Endzeit..., mit dem die Prophetic seit Jesaja die Fiille aller Untadeligkeit verband'). 28. '... der polaren Spannung von Gericht und Gnade'; 'etwas Grundneues; wir


149

Independently Botterweck (1956), Stinespring (1961) and North (1963) argued for much the same interpretation of the Chronistic Davidbild and its omissions of negative passages from 2 Samuel 9-20.29 Im (1985) presents the most recent and thoroughgoing study of 'Davidism' in Chronicles. He argues that David is depicted as the ideal ruler of Israel (pp. 35-69) and the exemplary worshipper of Yahweh (pp. 70-112). The Chronicler's David is said to be a figure of hope and expectation for the post-exilic community, specifically 'a theocratic Messiah from the House of David' (p. 185). Im intends by this distinction a figure that is exalted yet fully continuous with the line of David and his earthly kingdom (p. 178): 'The Chronicler expected the restoration of the Davidic kingdom as in the time of David, and a Davidide who could accomplish this task. The kingdom belongs to this world and history and is not transcendental.'30 Im's work reflects the methodological difficulties that often beset studies of 'Davidism' in Chronicles. By restricting his investigation to 1 Chronicles 10-29, he was unable to explore how the issue of dynasty is developed in 2 Chronicles 1-36. In my view the essential question concerns not the Davidbild on its own but its meaning in the context of the Davidic covenant. It will be argued in the following chapter that in the Chronicler's presentation the Davidic covenant is an inclusive concept that embraces all of the writer's theological concerns, providing the basis of hope and expectation as well as the means of forgiveness and restoration. To infer the Chronicler's future outlook from his Davidbild alone is an overly subjective approach that does not take account of other factors. Although David might appear as an idealized figure from the perspective of the post-exilic period, such a phenomenon (if, indeed, it is the case) need not reflect messianic longings, but is rather a standard motif in post-exilic literature (Japhet 1989: 498). I have argued, as well, in Chapter 4 that the Chronicler treats David more historically than typologically and highlights his serious failings as well as his positive achievements. There is no question of a one-sided portrayal of David as a cypher of hope. haben es, wenn nur schiichtern angedeutet, mit einer Form von Endwartung zu tun.' 29. In comparable vein, see most recently Brueggemann 1985: 99-107. 30. 'Der Chronist erwartete die Wiederherstellung des "innerweltlichen" und "innergeschichtlichen", nicht transzendentalen Konigtum Davids wie in der Davidzeit, und einen Davididen, der diese Aufgabe bewaltigen kann.'

150


We are reminded, however, by Im's conclusion (that David is presented as a type of 'a theocratic Messiah') that the basic terms in this discussion ('eschatology', 'theocracy' and 'messiah') are often construed in conflicting ways by different scholars. For example, Japhet uses 'eschatology' in the suprahistorical sense when she denies that Chronicles has any such elements. Theocracy' has been used, especially since Ploger, to denote an anti-eschatological hierocracy, although it plainly has a wider range of meaning in the biblical tradition. 'Messianism' is also a polyvalent and developing concept in biblical theology. Saeb0 distinguishes between 'eschatological' and 'royal messianism' and finds in Chronicles a 'Davidic-theocratic messianism' (1980: 103). Certainly discussion would benefit from more precision over the use of such terms. 2. 'Restorative Eschatology' Freedman (1961), Cross (1975), Newsome (1975) and Throntveit (1987) all assign a fairly precise Sitz im Leben to Chronicles, the Judean restoration and temple-building under Zerubbabel and Joshua. These scholars maintain that Chronicles reflects a 'restorative eschatology' focused on the Davidic house. Thus Freedman argued that Chronicles was written 'to establish and defend the legitimate claims of the house of David to pre-eminence in Israel, and in particular its authoritative relationship to the temple and cult' (1961: 440-41). The Chronicler's work is said to be linked with the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, who designated Zerubbabel as the legitimate heir of the Davidic dynasty (1961:441).31 This approach rightly recognizes the central place of the dynasty and the temple in Chronicles and its concern with prophecy. However, it is unlikely that Chronicles can be dated so early or tied so closely to the work of the Judean Restoration. The internal evidence of Chronicles suggests instead that it belongs to the fourth century, and there is no good reason for relegating 1 Chronicles 1-9 to a secondary level of composition, as this theory requires. Secondly, the Chronicler does not appear to be a contemporary of Haggai and Zechariah, but rather one for whom Zechariah at least had authoritative status as a writing prophet. This is apparent from the citation of Zech. 4.10 in the 'Levitical sermon' in 2 Chronicles 16.7-10. Presumably the passage of some time was necessary before these prophetic words were received as 'scriptural'. The same holds for 31. Most proponents of this view endorse Cross's theory of multiple redactions. This argument is foundational to the work of McKenzie (1985) and Hanson (1986).


151

Hezekiah's words in 2 Chron. 30.6-9, which may be dependent on Zechariah 1.2-6.32 A third objection concerns the interpretation of the role of Zerubbabel. Even if Ezra 1.1-3.13 were part of the Chronicler's original composition, as Cross's theory holds, there is no evidence from these chapters that Zerubbabel's Davidic lineage was a focus of expectation. In fact, Ezra 2-3 (and 4) are completely silent about Zerubbabel's origins (other than his father's name) and his precise status. Japhet (1982: 72) remarks that silence on this matter concerning a descendant of David can only be intentional and reflects the view that the Davidic house is not presented here as a vehicle of aspirations. 3. Mosis: Solomon as Eschatological Symbol Mosis (1973) offers the most original interpretation of the eschalogical question in Chronicles, although he has found few followers. He rejects solutions derived from the Chronicler's 'Davidism' and stresses instead the paradigmatic treatment of history which he discerns in the work. According to this view, Saul represents the time of apostasy and exile, David the 'turn toward salvation' ('Wende zum Heil'), and Solomon the era of final redemption, the eschatological rest. The character of this 'Heilszeit' is reflected in the depiction of the wealth and splendour of Jerusalem, the recognition accorded to Yahweh and his sanctuary by the heathen, and the end of the people's oppression (p. 163). Thus the Chronicler presents his Solomonic narrative not as history but as a prefigurement of his expectation: it is 'an image of the salvation which is still outstanding at his time, the time of the second temple, and whose coming he expects for a yet future time' (p. 163).33 The Solomonic temple is also intended as a perfect eschatological figure because it unites the tent and altar of the ideal Mosaic period with the ark, and thus transcends both the first temple and the second (p. 226). Mosis argues that there is no place in this conception for the dynastic promise as it has been historically understood. He accordingly renders 1 Chron. 17.1 Ob (mrr ~p my rrm) not as a promise but as a preterite 32. The relationship between Haggai and Zechariah, their work and eponymous writings, is a complex matter as well. In particular, Haggai and Zech. 1-8 differ over the role of Zerubbabel (e.g. the dyarchic form of leadership involving Joshua envisaged in Zech. 1-8). 33. '... ein Bild des Heils, das zu seiner Zeit, der Zeit des zweiten Tempels, noch aussteht und dessen Kommen er fur eine noch zukiinftige Zeit erwartet.'

152


statement referring to the children already granted David in 1 Chron. 14.3-7 and 16.43. Mosis defends this reading on the basis of the tense uses in 1 Chron. 11.8b and Isa. 6.4 (pp. 85-87), but this overlooks the fact that the latter two passages are durative or circumstantial clauses (Williamson 1982: 135). The objections to Mosis's approach may be briefly stated. First, as I argued in Chapter 4 in discussion of the Davidic narrative, the Chronicler's concern there is more historical than typological. Admittedly the writer uses a very distinctive patterned form of presentation for his homiletic purpose, but he does not sever an interest in history. Similarly, the Solomonic narrative cannot be dehistoricized. The portrayal is heightened but not 'endzeitlich' because the Chronicler bases his description of Hezekiah's reign (2 Chron. 29-32) on the united reign of David and Solomon,34 implying the recurrence of those blessings in history. Secondly, it is recognized that the Chronicler presents the reigns of David and Solomon as complementary, 'a single "unified" event in the history of the people' (Williamson 1976: 356).35 This 'event' belongs to the foundational past and refutes the sharp distinction Mosis draws between the Davidic and Solomonic eras (1973: 162). Thirdly, the 'Mosaic' elements in the Solomonic temple are a reflection not of end-time expectation but of the inclusive nature of the Davidic covenant. In the Chronicler's view this covenant is the new definitive basis of the nation, into which the earlier patriarchal and Mosaic expressions of Israel's relationship with Yahweh have been incorporated. The use of Abrahamic and Mosaic motifs in the portrayal of David is intended to show him fulfilling the work of his predecessors (cf. 1 Chron. 22.22, 24, 26; 28.12, 19), and Solomon is presented along similar lines (cf. 2 Chron. 1.9; 3.1; 7.1).36 34. Cf. Williamson 1977a: 119-25; Throntveit 1988. 35. Cf. also Braun 1973; Braun 1976; Throntveit 1987; Throntveit 1988. One of the large-scale structuring devices which the Chronicler uses for welding David's and Solomon's reigns together is the use of Moses-Joshua typology in describing Solomon's accession. The 'encouragement formula' (Braun) of Deut. 31.23/Josh. 1.6, 9 is found in 1 Chron. 22.11, 13; 28.10, 20. There is also a structural similarity in ideas: the completion of the divinely-appointed task (occupation of the land or temple-building) depends on the provision made by the predecessor and on obedience to the Law. The unity of their reigns is also reinforced by the unique way in which Solomon's accession is announced (1 Chron. 29.33-35) before the notice of David's death (vv. 26-30). 36. Williamson (1991: 27) suggests that the Chronicler had a conciliatory motive


153

It must be allowed, however, that just as the example of David's piety is held before the community, the Chronicler also intended his heightened portrayal of the Solomonic era as a spur to his own community, living in straitened conditions, to look for a restoration of past glories. Two details from 2 Chronicles 9 may hint at this. 1 Kgs lO.lOb remarks on the queen of Sheba's gift of spices that 'never again were so many spices brought in' (3~b TIB «vn DEDD to vb), and v. 12b comments on the almug wood from which instruments were made '(such wood) has never been seen to this day' (mn ovn ii> n&ni RVi). The Chronicler alters both phrases to read 'there had never been such spices' (rrn KÎ Rinn DtaD, 2 Chron. 9.9b) and 'nothing like them [i.e. the instruments] had been seen previously in the land of Judah' (pto n*izh> criD lira KÎ rmrr, v. lib).37 Mosis thinks that these phrases were altered to express the eschatological view that the 'Solomonic period' to come would be the time of incomparable splendour (cf. 1973: 160 on the omission of Tiu: 'Solomon's time appears thereby as the full completion of the time "previously"').38 It is more likely, however, that the difference should be explained by the more positive perspective of Chronicles in comparison with Kings. Whereas the exilic Deuteronomist could only look back ruefully over the devastation of judgment and the loss of Israel's greatness, the post-exilic Chronicler was more concerned to stress that restoration had begun and that nothing in principle stood in the way of the resumption of such blessings as had once characterized the DavidicSolomonic past.39

in linking these ancient Mosaic cultic objects with the Jerusalem temple, viz. to unite around it groups that had lingering loyalties to the cultic centres of Gibeon (traditionally associated with the bronze altar and tabernacle) and Shiloh (the erstwhile home of the ark). 37. The LXX of 1 Kgs lO.lOb reads: OVK £X,r)tai>0ei KOCTCC ta r|8ija|j.<XT<x exeiva eu eiqrcX,f|6o paoiXei IaA.(ou,?«x 6uteXeKT|Ta eni TTJ8e axpGricav not) eco, which is significant elsewhere for describing true help from Yahweh,26 is used here to designate Ahaz's recourse to a pagan power (vv. 16, 21, 23). Kings allows that the treaty brought short-term benefit to Judah, and it records Ahaz's subsequent cultic innovations (2 Kgs 16.10-18) factually, without evident praise or condemnation. By contrast, the Chronicler treats the alliance as destructive rather than helpful (vv. 20-21), since it induced Ahaz into deepening apostasy (vv. 22-25). Once more, the root question is Ahaz's disposition of unfaithfulness and his failure to repent 'in his time of distress' (contrast Manasseh in 2 Chron. 33.12). (iii) Hezekiah against Sennacherib (2 Chronicles 32.2-3). This example treats the theme of alliances by omitting details from the Vorlage that pointed to Hezekiah's less than exemplary behaviour. It appears from the Rabshakeh's speech in 2 Kgs 18.21, 24 that Hezekiah had opened negotiations with Egypt for help, a recourse that was criticized by Isaiah (Isa. 30.1-5; 31.1-3). The Chronicler suppresses these references in Kings and instead presents Hezekiah (in words echoing Isa. 31.1, 3) as urging trust in Yahweh's help alone. The people 'lean' Cono'i) on these words (rather than Egypt; cf. the use of "[ocr, 2 Kgs 18.21), and their faith is duly vindicated (v. 22). 2. Treaties between Judah and Israel The account of Judah's contacts with its northern neighbour must be distinguished from its associations with foreign powers. In the Chronicler's view the northern tribes retained their status as 'Israel', despite their rebellion (Williamson 1977a). Moreover, the author recounts every contact between the two states reported in his Vorlage (with the exception of 2 Kgs 3.4-27, whose omission is discussed below). Nevertheless, the cult of the northern kingdom is rejected as illegitimate (cf. 2 Chron. 13.5-9), and treaties with this kingdom are consistently condemned. Again, this fact arises from redaction of the material which clarifies the author's outlook. Whereas Kings seems content for the most part simply to report these alliances, once more the Chronicler reorders the material or inserts interpretative comments to bring out the 26. Cf. 1 Chron. 5.20; 12.17, 18, 22; 15.26; 2 Chron. 14.10 [E 11]; 18.31; 25.8; 26.7; 32.8.

8. Subsidiary Themes and Motifss

207

significance of these treaties. These concern marriage and economic ventures, as well as military matters. (i) Jehoshaphat's alliances (2 Chronicles 18.1-2; 20.35-37). The paratactic structure of the Chronicler's Jehoshaphat narrative was discussed in Chapter 4, where it was noted that it consists of alternating tableaux of periods of fidelity and compromising alliances with the north. The significance of the latter involvement is now examined more closely. After describing Jehoshaphat's exemplary start (2 Chron. 17.1-19), when the king rejected Baalism and the practices of Israel (vv. 3-4) and so received 'riches and honour' (v. 5), the author repeats this latter notice in 2 Chron. 18.1, suggesting perhaps that pride induced the king to enter a marriage alliance with the House of Ahab (cf. v. 3). In the Chronicler's eyes there could be no justification for such an association with the north. Kings has a different focus, the judgment on Ahab (cf. 1 Kgs 22.36-40, no parallel). It makes no mention at this point of the marriage alliance,27 nor does it comment on Jehoshaphat's involvement with Ahab in the battle at Ramoth-gilead. By contrast, the Chronicler remarks that Ahab 'enticed' (inrrcn, v. 2) Jehoshaphat, an expression with undertones of apostasy (cf. Deut. 13.7 [E 6]). Jehu's rebuke on the king's return from battle (2 Chron. 19.2, 'Should you help the wicked and love those who hate Yahweh?') is directed against the alliance with the north. The expressions 'love' (nn«) and 'hate' ($w) have a political (and covenantal) connotation here, denoting actions within a treaty relationship.28 The Chronicler also uses 'help' to designate formal military support (1 Chron. 18.5; 2 Chron. 28.16). Jehoshaphat's second alliance with the north is the failed maritime venture with Ahaziah (2 Chron. 20.35-37). This account differs significantly from 1 Kgs 22.48-49 and has given rise to the charge that the Chronicler rewrote his Vorlage to explain why disaster befell an otherwise good king.29 The divergences in the Greek witnesses30 do not 27. Although the Chronicler bases his account here on inferences from passages such as 2 Kgs. 8.18. Jehoshaphat's reply in 1 Kgs 22.4 also implies an alliance (Gray 1964: 399). 28. Cf. Thompson 1979: 203-204. 29. Cf. Curtis and Madsen 1910: 412. 30. These are the parallel passage in 2 Chron. 20 (LXX); 1 Kgs 22.41-42 (LXX); and the insertion 1 Kgs 16.28c-g (LXX). OL has its own divergences from the MT and LXX.

208


permit us to state with confidence the exact nature of the Chronicler's Vorlage at this point, but it is clear from the style of this passage that it has been reworked by the author.31 This is most evident in the insertion of prophetic censure for alliance with ' Ahaziah king of Israel, who acted wickedly' (v. 35). (ii) Dynastic association with the Ahabites (2 Chronicles 21-23). The importance of this theme was discussed in Chapter 7, where it was seen that as a result of Jehoshaphat's marriage pact the Davidic house was brought to the brink of destruction and yet was preserved because of Yahweh's commitment to the Davidic covenant. The Chronicler lays stress upon the evil counsel that such association brings, particularly as it may induce the nation into apostasy (cf. 2 Chron. 21.13; 22.4-5, no parallel). (iii) Amaziah 's Mercenaries (2 Chronicles 25.6-10). The prophetic repudiation of Amaziah's attempt to use Israelite mercenaries is based on familiar themes: these soldiers are considered apostates, and God's power and help are sufficient for his people (vv. 7-8). The clear implication of the unit is that Amaziah should be wholehearted in trusting Yahweh alone (cf. v. 2). The remaining question from this survey concerns the Chronicler's omission of 2 Kgs 3.4-27. In this account Jehoshaphat responds to Joram's appeal to join forces with him and the king of Edom against Moab. The mission receives (qualified) prophetic endorsement by Elisha (vv. 16-19) and is apparently successful, though it ends on an ambiguous note (v. 27). The Chronicler's omission of this narrative has been much discussed; however, the older view that posited a midrashic literary connection with 2 Chron. 20.1-30 is now generally rejected (cf. Williamson 1982: 279). The probable reason for omission is the element of prophetic endorsement in the Vorlage. Such an act runs counter to the Chronicler's presentation, in which prophets consistently condemn such alliances.

31. Willi (1972: 219) explains the Chronicler's version as a natural interpretation of 1 Kgs 22.50, taking HQR as pluperfect and IN as 'at that time'. Yet, as Knoppers observes (1991: 521), this does not explain why Jehoshaphat in 1 Kgs 22 refuses Ahaziah's offer, whereas in 2 Chron. 20.36 he acts in alliance with him. Must the possibility be rejected that the two works record different aspects of the tradition?

8. Subsidiary Themes and Motifs

209

3. Conclusion All the above examples have shown that the Chronicler has redacted his Vorlage to express consistent opposition to alliances with the ungodly. This view is certainly no innovation in the biblical tradition. Rather it has a clear traditio-historical background, and we may well see here a (proto-)midrashic application on a theme reflected in two corpora of particular importance to the Chronicler, the Law and the classical prophets. In Exod. 23.32, 34.12-16, and Deut. 7.2, each from passages in 'Yahweh war' tradition relating to the conquest, Israel is forbidden from making a treaty (rr-n) with the inhabitants of the land. Recourse to foreign powers is also widely condemned as futile and unfaithful in the prophetic writings.32 The Chronicler stands within this prophetic tradition, closely reflecting its ideas and language.33 The immediate significance of the motif of opposition to alliances is not clear, but it is possible that in the vulnerable circumstances of the Chronicler's own time, when Judah's borders were threatened by the encroachment of hostile neighbours, some circles may have sought an accommodation with their neighbours and Samaria. If so, the Chronicler rejected such a line. Dillard (1987: 144) suggests that the writer's 'frequent introduction of this theme into his history must have had rhetorical relevance for the post-exilic community: though facing opposition and afforded many opportunities to trust in foreign powers and alliances, Judah in the restoration period was urged to trust in her God alone.' However, closer examination of these cases shows that the Chronicler's objection is not to alliances per se, but rather to those associations that express disloyalty to Yahweh and foster religious corruption in his covenant people. The evidence of 2 Kgs 17.24-41 and Ezra 4.2-3 points to a considerable amount of syncretistic Yahwism in the postexilic period, elements of which sought some association with the leadership of the Galut. Perhaps the Chronicler echoes such controversies in his treatment of this theme. In any case, he perceived the issue as one of priorities: faith in God must always take precedence over political convenience, and there was no place for the kind of religious compromise that had brought destruction upon the pre-exilic state. However, while the writer rejects military and other pacts for the period of post-schism Judah, it must be recalled that he also depicts the time of David and 32. Cf. e.g. Hos. 7.11-12; 8.9-10; Isa. 20.5-6; 30.1-14; Jer. 2.14-19, 36-37. 33. Cf. Chapter 3 above on the 'vocabulary of retribution'.

210


Solomon as one of economic collaboration with Hiram, including maritime ventures (1 Chron. 14.1; 2 Chron. 2.3-16; 8.17-18; 9.21; contrast 2 Chron. 20.35-37).34 Furthermore, both Hiram and the queen of Sheba recognize Yahweh's choice of Solomon as king over Israel, and both bear witness to the fulfilment of the divine promises made to David's son (2 Chron. 2.11-16; 9.1-9). By the same token Cyrus's action in facilitating the Return evidently contributes to the furtherance of those promises (2 Chron. 36.22-23). What may be said, then, about the Chronicler's own attitude to the political arrangements of his day? It will be recalled that the circles from which this work emanated depended to some extent on Achaemenid patronage. The temple had been built at the behest of the Persian emperor and with the subvention of imperial revenue (Ezra 1.1-6; 4.3; 6.3-12). Hanson (1975: 274-75) argues from these facts that 'the Chronicler's work' (i.e. Chronicles-Ezra-Nehemiah) is marked by 'proPersian proclivities' and supported a policy of collaboration with the Persians because the restoration depended on the active support of the Persian emperor. Hanson draws the further inference that '[t]he price paid for this Persian support was absolute fidelity to the Persian emperor, with the resulting necessity that hopes for regained national autonomy be eschewed. The Chronicler stands in whole-hearted support for this Persian-Israelite alliance.' However, Hanson's evidence for this interpretation is deduced only from Ezra-Nehemiah and the supposition is projected on to Chronicles.35 'Alliance' is, of course, used in this case in a different sense from the above examples, where it connotes arrangements between approximate equals; here, Persia is clearly the ruling authority, and had 34. Williamson (1982: 200) and Japhet (1993: 629-30) hold that Hiram is presented as a vassal in these arrangements, while Selman (1994b: 298-99) maintains that a parity treaty is intended. 35. It may be questioned, however, whether Hanson's claim does justice to Ezra-Nehemiah either, considered as a separate work from Chronicles. Cf. McConville (1986), who argues that the attitude toward Persia in these books, so far from being favourable (so also Rudolph), is at best equivocal: the parallel of the return with the exodus likens Babylon to Egypt; Ezra 6.22 ('the king of Assyria') links Darius with Sennacherib and Shalmaneser; and the prayers of Ezra 9 and Neh. 9 reveal that the relationship with Persia was essentially burdensome and incompatible with the true realization of the community's hopes. Ezra 9.8-9 does reflect a more positive experience of Persian rule, but this is understood as Yahweh's doing rather than Persia's.


211

been so for perhaps two hundred years. Even if the Chronicler took a basically positive view of Persian rule (and the evidence is equivocal, for all that he understands Yahweh to be working through Cyrus; cf. 2 Chron. 36.22-23), nevertheless the writer was keenly aware that such a subject condition was a consequence of sin (which might be reversed by repentance), and that there remained a great difference between '(Yahweh's) service and the service of the kingdoms of the countries' (2 Chron. 12.8). 6. The 'Kingdom of Yahweh' in Chronicles The theme of Yahweh's kingship is a common one in the Old Testament, but the Chronicler deals with it in a distinctive way that has implications for determining his future hope. There are two main strands to the writer's presentation here. In the first case, he explicitly represents Israel and Judah under the Davidic dynasty as the earthly expression of Yahweh's kingdom. This understanding of Israel was discussed in general thematic terms in the previous chapter. Secondly, the Chronicler reflects the broader Old Testament conception of Yahweh's universal kingship, which is eternal, and embraces the nations and the cosmos. The two notions are not naively equated in his work, but the reality of Yahweh's rule in the former case is strongly affirmed.36 This discussion concentrates on the language employed by the Chronicler to convey these concepts. The expression 'kingdom of Yahweh' (or its semantic equivalent) is neither widespread nor frequent in the Old Testament,37 but there is a marked emphasis in Chronicles, which features at significant points in the narrative. First, there is the manifestation of Yahweh's kingdom in Israel. The first implied reference is found in 1 Chron. 10.14, with the account of Saul's death: 'Yahweh turned the kingdom (rDibnn n«) over to David' (cf. 1 Chron. 12.24 [E 23]). The explicit association of Yahweh's kingdom and the earthly kingdom of Israel under the Davidic house is made in the account of the dynastic promise. Whereas 2 Sam. 7.16 reads: Your house and your kingdom (inD'pQQi ~|rr3) will be established for ever before me; your throne ("|«D3) will be established for ever, 36. Cf. Japhet 1989: 397 n. 9; Selman 1989: 166. 37. Yahweh's 'kingdom' is represented by rro'M, nsban, miba and Aram. oba. Cf. Pss. 45.6; 103.19; 145.11-13; Obad. 21; Dan. 2.44; 3.33 [E 4.3]; 6.27 [E 26]; 7.14, 18, 27; 1 Chron. 17.14; 28.5; 29.11; 2 Chron. 13.8.

212


in 1 Chron. 17.14 this is altered to: I will confirm him in my house and in my kingdom ('troîm 'rrni) for ever, and his throne CIROOI) will be established for ever.

Next, at the transition of rule, David declares that Yahweh 'has chosen Solomon my son to sit upon the throne of the kingdom of Yahweh over Israel' (1 Chron. 28.5). This striking expression is given added force by the description of Solomon's accession: 'Then Solomon sat on the throne of Yahweh as king in place of David his father' (1 Chron. 29.23); and by the recognition of this fact by the queen of Sheba (2 Chron. 9.8a): Blessed be Yahweh your God, who has delighted in you and set you on his throne as king for Yahweh your God (contrast 1 Kgs 10.9a, 'and set you on the throne of Israel').

Japhet (1989: 400) comments: '"The throne of the LORD" constitutes an abstract expression referring to YHWH's dominion over Israel, which is put into concrete political practice by means of David and Solomon.' In the Chronicler's view theocracy in Israel is properly (and inalienably) exercised through the legitimate Davidic line, a point emphasized in Abijah's address to the north (2 Chron. 13.5, 8): Ought you not to know that Yahweh God of Israel gave the kingdom over Israel to David and his descendants by a covenant of salt? [... ] And now you think to withstand the kingdom of Yahweh in the hands of David's descendants.

The above references are all taken from the Chronicler's Sondergut or redaction. Complementing this specific, localized understanding of Yahweh's kingdom are several passages which stress its universal and eternal character. The substantive rc'TOd and equivalent expressions denoting kingly rule are of particular importance here. The thought of Yahweh's universal rale comes to the fore especially in connection with worship and the temple, where, not surprisingly, the influence of the Psalter may be discerned. Thus, the installation of the ark in Jerusalem, prefiguring the temple, evokes the confession, 'Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad, and let them say among the nations, "Yahweh reigns!'" (-pa mir) (1 Chron. 16.31 = Ps. 96.10). In the great paean that marks the climax of David's reign (1 Chron. 29.10-19), the king extols Yahweh's universal rale as offerings are made for the construction of the temple (vv. 1112a):


213

To you, Yahweh, belong the greatness, the power, the glory, the majesty and the splendour; for all that is in the heavens and earth is yours. Yours Yahweh, is the kingdom (rD^nnn); you are exalted as head over all. Wealth and honour come from you, and you rule over all ("733 "xjio).

Selman (1994a: 259-60) points to the influence here of Psalm 145, which has several references to Yahweh's kingdom (vv. 11-13) and has in other respects shaped the thought and language of this prayer.38 A further allusion in Chronicles to Yahweh's universal kingly rale is found in 2 Chron. 20.6 by Jehoshaphat, again in the context of worship in the temple: Yahweh, God of our fathers, are you not God in heaven? You rule OTBID) over the kingdoms of the nations, and in your hand are power and might (mini nD TTTI).

The latter phrase, stressing Yahweh's omnipotence, appears to be a direct citation from the continuation of David's prayer (1 Chron. 29.12b). To conclude, the Chronicler combines two distinct senses of Yahweh's kingdom: its earthly, specific manifestation in the Davidic dynasty; and its eternal, universal character, which is particularly recognized in the cult. Each aspect would have given the Chronicler's original readers grounds for hope and assurance. Although the dynasty had long since ceased to function, because Israel's kingdom was irrevocably connected with Yahweh's kingdom, it was secure and everlasting, whatever the post-exilic community's experience of political subservience indicated (cf. Williamson 1982: 26). Worship in the temple would also remind the community of Yahweh's universal rule and his omnipotence exercised on Israel's behalf. The 'kingdom of Yahweh' in Chronicles is not a (consummatory) eschatological concept as in later Jewish and Christian thought, but a present, immanent reality as well as a fact of Israel's past that may be realized afresh, as and when Yahweh wills. 7. Summary and Conclusion This chapter has examined five features of the work, including its style and subsidiary motifs, to determine whether they corroborate the general lines identified in the previous chapter. These elements are all expressions of the Chronicler's own outlook, although they have their 38. E.g. v. 11, which is reminiscent of Ps. 145.3-6. Cf. also Selman 1989.

214


traditio-historical background in a wide range of earlier biblical materials. The following conclusions have emerged. 1. The passages of direct speech are exhortative and paraenetic in character; at the rhetorical level they address the Chronicler's own community with the aim of fostering an expectant faith in Yahweh and diligent support of the cult. The conclusion (2 Chron. 36.22-23) also functions on the same level of inviting a proper response to Yahweh's continuing purposes in the restoration. It does not speak of the present experience as fulfilment but points instead to a wider horizon of expectation. 2. The Chronicler's depiction of war and peace was seen to have an important role in both his retributive and eschatological outlook. War is the punishment of apostasy, while 'rest for the land' is the blessing for faithfulness to the covenant. The 'Yahweh war' narratives in the Sondergut are especially significant for conveying the hope of deliverance. The use of this theme in a work emanating from temple circles is also notable, and it indicates that an institutionalized hierocracy and the lively hope of national redemption ('spiritualized' in this traditional literary-ideological form) are not necessarily opposed to each other. 3. The relationship between king and high priest was examined next. It was concluded that a trend associated with post-exilic hierocracy, the exaltation of the office and status of the high priest at the expense of the monarchy, was not supported by the Chronicler. Instead, the writer appeared to heighten the standing of the king over against the high priest. He also affirmed the importance of the king in leading and providing for the temple cult, though not participating in specifically priestly rituals. These details suggest that the Chronicler understood there to be a continuing role for the Davidic king in cultic matters, rather than agreeing with the supersession of the king by the hierocracy. Moreover, the king is plainly the representative of the nation. 4. The writer takes a nuanced view of alliances, rejecting associations with pagans and apostates that would undermine Judah's covenantal loyalty, but not rejecting alliances per se. The Chronicler's position is fundamentally religious: loyal faith in Yahweh alone must take priority over the commitments of international politics, and in this way, the community may be assured of divine protection from its hostile neighbours. Furthermore, although the Chronicler understood Yahweh's


215

purposes to be continued through Cyrus, in no sense is Cyrus to be understood as a 'successor' of David.39 5. The Chronicler's distinctive understanding of Israelite kingship (whereby it is linked with Yahweh's eternal kingdom) similarly witnesses to a hope for the transformation of the present circumstances of the community. Yahweh's kingship over Israel is given inalienably to David's descendants, so Israel cannot be finally subject to a different order. The emphasis on Yahweh's transcendence and universal kingly power is also striking, and it serves to some extent to reduce the significance (and seeming permanence) of the world powers to which the Chronicler's community was subject. It is concluded, then, that the force and tendency of these subsidiary motifs are very much in line with the interpretation offered in the previous chapters of the broader themes that make up the Chronicler's presentation.

39. As Riley( 1993: 193, 197) asserts.

Chapter 9 CHRONICLES AS THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRADITION 1. Introduction: Chronicles and the Deuteronomistic History The previous two chapters have argued that the Chronicler's outlook is marked by a forward movement of thought and expectation, a pervasive sense of what Israel's circumstances may yet be, rather than a static, 'ecclesiastical' conception of 'theocracy'. Thus, it was argued in Chapter 7 that the different elements that constitute Israel as the kingdom of Yahweh (the Davidic covenant as this is expressed in the dynastic line and the temple, and the land and the people that make up the covenant nation) all anticipate a greater fulfilment than is presently the case. The subsidiary motifs discussed in Chapter 8 were found to support this conclusion. This point must now be considered at the comparative level, in order to put the Chronicler's work in its religious and historical context and to grasp more clearly his purpose in writing. Comparative work naturally focuses upon the relationship of Chronicles to the Deuteronomistic History, especially Samuel-Kings, since by far the greatest proportion of the Chronicler's work is dependent on that corpus. In fact, the writer's canvas is much wider, embracing as it does Pentateuchal sources in the genealogies, citations from the Prophets in his 'Levitical sermons', and excerpts from (or allusions to) the Psalms in his cultic descriptions and prayers.1 Ezra-Nehemiah also comes into the writer's purview. However, it is in comparison with the

1. Cf. Willi 1972: 137, 176-77 on the Chronicler's onthological style and biblicism. Willi sees the Chronicler's procedures as evidence of an underlying concept of canon (1972: 133-34). Whether or not this is correct, it is evident that these writings had normative and authoritative status in the post-exilic community; cf. Williamson 1988: 35. Selman (1994a: 26) makes the persuasive suggestion that 'the Chronicler's overall aim was to offer an interpretation of the Bible as he knew it', and he presents an extensive survey of the Chronicler's 'inner-biblical exegesis'.

9. Chronicles as the Development of Tradition

217

Deuteronomist's2 understanding of judgment, retribution and hope that the clearest perspective on the Chronicler's view of these topics emerges. Ezra-Nehemiah provides an additional, intermediate stage of comparison, and is similarly considered, although more briefly, for its theological relationship to Chronicles. This chapter focuses strictly on these ideological questions, among the numerous points of difference, and is not intended as a full-scale comparison. Nonetheless, these issues, being central to the concerns of both Chronicles and the Deuteronomistic History, and to Old Testament theology in general, are among the most important for comparison and interpretation. Taking the Chronicler's retributive and eschatological doctrines as test cases, and setting them against earlier reflection on these questions, this chapter will argue that the Chronicler intended his work as a conscious continuation and authoritative developmentof those traditions. The relation of Chronicles to the Deuteronomistic History is one of the oldest and most perennial issues in Chronicles studies,3 in which probably more attention has been focused on historical and textual problems than on questions of theological difference.4 In speaking of the Deuteronomistic History, it will be clear that the final form of that work is meant. The composition of this work is a complex matter on which there is little consensus, and new hypotheses continue to be proposed on this question.5 Put simply, however, these views fall into three main groups. 2. The singular is used for convenience throughout, whether we are to think of an individual author/compiler or a pre-exilic 'Deuteronomistic school' of traditionists (Nicholson, Weinfeld), whose work was incorporated in the final form of the book. On theories of multiple redaction of the Deuteronomistic History, see below. 3. For a survey of this question see Willi 1972: 12-47. The LXX title FIAPAAEinOMENflN may reflect one of the earliest understandings of the relationship of this work to Samuel-Kings; cf. Strubind 1991: 10-12. 4. On the historical problems raised by Chronicles in relation to Kings see especially Graham (1990) on nineteenth-century criticism, and Japhet (1985) for a survey of twentieth-century views. The textual questions have been studied especially by Lemke (1965), Ulrich (1978) and McKenzie (1985). Interest in theological differences has concentrated largely on the question of the Priestly Law in the respective works, as classically expressed by Wellhausen (1885: ch. 6). Von Rad (1930) and Noth (1967 [1943]) compared the retributive doctrines of the works, a procedure carried out more extensively by Japhet (1989: 153-54). These views were criticized in Chapter 4 above, and further points of difference will arise in this discussion. 5. For a survey of this question see McKenzie 1991: 1-19.

218


The oldest position, which stems from Noth (1967 [1943]), holds that the Deuteronomistic History is essentially a unified exilic composition which may contain some secondary passages from the post-exilic period.6 The second view maintains that an exilic Deuteronomistic Grundschrift was supplemented by other hands to make possession of the land or the perdurance of the dynasty contingent on obedience to the law.7 The other major alternative holds that the original form of the work ('Dtr 1') dates from Josiah's reign and was intended to support his reforms. These expectations were, however, confounded by events, and other passages (principally the pericope blaming Manasseh for the exile in 2 Kgs 21.2-15 and the section from 23.25b to the end) were added by the exilic 'Dtr 2'. This reshaped the work into a document relevant to exiles, for whom the bright hopes of the Josianic era were past.8 These different recensional theories have been proposed to account for tensions perceived in the overall presentation. They imply conflicting understandings of the community's history and expectation at different periods, but it is not necessary to engage with that question here. Only McKenzie (1985) has maintained that the Chronicler used a pre-exilic version of the Deuteronomistic History, but his arguments for the dating of Chronicles and indications of the use of 'Dtr 1' are unconvincing.9 Like the rest of 6. Noth 1967: 1-110. There is a tendency in recent work to draw upon literary features such as irony or other narrative indications to reassert the unity of the Deuteronomistic History; cf. Hoffmann 1980; Long 1984; Hobbs 1985; McConville 1989; 1992. 7. Cf. Dietrich 1972; Veijola 1975. 8. Cross 1973: 274-89. Cross's view is accepted with modifications to the extent of the Dtr 2's work by Levenson (1980), Nelson (1981) and McKenzie (1991). 9. For reviews of McKenzie (1985), see R.W. Klein, CBQ 49 (1987): 478-79 J.G. McConville, JTS 38 (1987): 137-39; M.A. Throntveit, JBL 106 (1987): 31920; H.G.M. Williamson, VT37 (1987): 107-114. McKenzie agrees with Cross on multiple editions or expansions of Chronicles, and so assigns 'Chr 1' to the early Restoration period. He suggests that the account of Manasseh's repentance (2 Chron. 33.11-17) may have originally stood in the Chronicler's Vorlage (1985: 163), but this is very unlikely on stylistic and ideological grounds; see below on the role of Manasseh in the respective works. McKenzie's strongest point has to do with the differences between Chronicles and Kings in 2 Chron. 35.20-36.23, which he thinks must be attributed to the Chronicler's use of another source (1985: 187). A different hypothesis was proposed earlier by Williamson (1982: 408-411; 1982a), who suggested that the additional details in the Chronicler's account of Josiah's confrontation with Neco (2 Chron. 33.21-25) were already found in his Vorlage of


219

his later (fourth century) post-exilic community, the Chronicler knew the Deuteronomistic History essentially in its present form. Our first task, then, is to outline the understanding of history and what expectation (if any) the Deuteronomist held out for his community, as the backdrop against which the shape of the Chronicler's thought is more readily appreciated. 2. Judgment in the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles Retribution is one of the fundamental themes of the Deuteronomistic History. Noth begins his discussion of the central theological ideas of the work by stating that the author composed his work to show the true meaning of Israel's history from the occupation to the destruction of the old order, namely (1967: 100) 'that God had acted recognizably in this history, responding to the steadily increasing decline with warnings and punishments, and finally, when these had proved fruitless, with complete annihilation'.10 How 'complete' or definitive this destruction was in the Deuteronomist's eyes has occasioned considerable debate. It is clear, however, that the Deuteronomist wrote to confirm the justice of God's acts in the destruction and exile, and to convince his readers of that fact.11 The Kings and represent a further stage in the development of the Deuteronomistic History beyond its canonical shape. Begg (1987a) has contested this suggestion, while Williamson has reaffirmed it in a rejoinder (1987 a). If Williamson's suggestion is correct, it would point to the Chronicler's use of a (Palestinian) version of Kings which ended in the destruction, leaving the people in the land, rather than their transportation into exile. However, notwithstanding the different endings of Chronicles and Kings, it remains more likely that the Chronicler worked from a recension of the Deuteronomistic History much like the canonical form. 2 Chron. 30.9 picks up the exilic reference in 1 Kgs 8.50 (see below), while 2 Chron. 36, although different in many respects from 2 Kgs 23.30-31, still has verbal affinities with that chapter that suggest dependence on it (cf. Chapters 1 and 4 above). The Chronicler has adapted it to express his own schema of 'exile and restoration'. 10. '... daB Gott in dieser Geschichte erkennbar gehandelt hat, indem er auf den standig wachsenden Abfall mit Warnungen und Strafen und schlieBlich, als diese sich als fruchtlos erwiesen batten, mit der volligen Vernichtung geantwortet hat.' 11. Cf. Patrick and Scult on the rhetoric of the Deuteronomistic History as 'forensic narrative' (1990: 76): '[The Deuteronomist] had foreshadowed the course of things to come in Deut. 29.1-30.10 and the poetic prophecy in Deuteronomy 32, and again in the last words of Joshua (Josh. 23; 24); he drove home the tenor of his theme in his assessment of each king's performance, his interpolations into the

220


Deuteronomist, no less than the Chronicler, understood Yahweh to be presiding over the course of history and recompensing the deeds of his covenant people.12 The Deuteronomic law of worship was the touchstone of fidelity, and because Israel and Judah had failed to follow that law, their histories had ended in destruction. The thought is expressed clearly in Deuteronomy 4 and 28, where it is emphasized that obedience to the Sinaitic covenant will bring prosperity and the secure possession of the land, but apostasy will lead to judgment and the exile of the people. These ideas underlie Solomon's temple dedication prayer (1 Kgs 8.23-53) and the description of Josiah's reforms (2 Kgs 22-23).13 Chronicles tells much the same story, and in places even strengthens the allusion to the Sinaitic covenant.14 The usual contrasts that are drawn between Chronicles and the Deuteronomistic History on cumulative guilt, collective punishment, and the deferment of punishment,15 have been examined at some length above, where it was concluded that the differences were more a matter of degree and relative emphasis than of conflicting understandings of retribution and human responsibility. The Chronicler also treats the exile as an inevitable outcome from 2 Chronicles 28 onward (the point is conveyed through the repeated literary motif of exile), an indication that he most probably understood this event as the result of repeated disobedience to which numerous acts contributed, rather than purely the fault of Zedekiah and his generation.16 It is true, however, that the Chronicler emphasizes the short-term nature of retribution and its 'individual or 'generational' character.17 The Deuteronomist, on the other hand, reflects a more varied picture words of the prophets, and his selection and arrangement of incidents. [... ] The reader cannot escape the conclusion that YHWH was justified in his judgment, his people were amply prepared for it, and they should now accept the blame.' 12. See Gammie 1970 for a refutation of Koch's influential view that retribution in the Old Testament is really an impersonal process, and for a useful discussion of the relation between recompense and covenant in Deuteronomy. 13. Already Keil (1966 [1872]: 125-33) showed in detail that 1 Kgs 8.23-53 reflects the covenant curses in Lev. 26.14-45 and especially Deut. 28.15-68. 14. Cf. 2 Chron. 7.14 and Deut. 28.10; 2 Chron. 7.20 and Deut. 29.27 [E v. 28]; 2 Chron. 34.24. 15. Cf. von Rad 1930: 12-13; Noth 1967; Japhet 1989: 156-60; cf. Chapter 2 above. 16. Contra Japhet 1989: 156-65; 1993: 1069. 17. See Chapter 4 on the paraenetic significance of this particular emphasis.


221

of the workings of retribution. It seems from a number of narratives that punishment may be meted out relatively quickly or else deferred until a much later time.18 But whatever may pertain in individual cases, there seems to be a consistent underlying pattern to the Deuteronomistic History. Throughout it demonstrates Israel's repeated propensity to violate the covenant and therefore undermine its possession of the land. The book of Judges is sometimes contrasted at this point with Kings: the former work is said to reflect recurring cycles of apostasy, judgment, repentance and deliverance (cf. Judg. 2.6-16.31), whereas Kings seems to show an inexorable downward spiral.19 However, as Webb (1987: 112) notes on Judg. 2.19a, 'the turning back of each generation is to a worse state of apostasy than that which characterizes the one before it', and Judges concludes on a note suggesting that Israel's hold on the land is increasingly tenuous and marked by chronic failures. Similarly, the capacity of the Davidic monarchy itself to bring salvation to Israel is called into question in Kings. Among recent writers who have commented on the narrative tendency of the work,20 it is argued that even reform according to the Law promoted by faithful Davidides such as Hezekiah and Josiah proves to be ineffectual in the face of Judah's mounting disobedience.21 Such evil reaches its zenith during the 18. Thus, punishment soon befalls Jeroboam's family (1 Kgs 14.18), Baasha's house (1 Kgs 11.10-13), Ahab (1 Kgs 22.34), Ahaziah (2 Kgs 1.15-17) and Jezebel (2 Kgs 9.30-37), in each case according to the prophetic word. Other acts of punishment are postponed or extended. Eli's line will be cut off with the deaths of Phinehas and Hophni (1 Sam. 2.34). The people's request for a king and Samuel's reply (1 Sam. 8.4-22) may reflect Solomon's period. The condemnation of Jeroboam's house also extends for some generations (1 Kgs 14.10-18), while 2 Kgs 10.32 intimates the beginning for Israel of the covenant curses of exile and loss of land. These will reach their full realization in 2 Kgs 17 (cf. vv. 7-23). Against this, 2 Kgs 13.23 speaks of the divine compassion that forestalled the exile, presumably to give Israel the opportunity to heed the prophetic call to repentance (2 Kgs 17.13; cf. Wolff 1961). On divine forbearance, cf. also 1 Kgs 11.12-13, 34-36; 21.29; 2 Kgs 22.18-20. 19. Cf. von Rad 1962: 347. Proponents of the 'double redaction' theory believe that Josiah's reign initially represented a decisive reversal of that trend, which is certainly evident at least from Solomon's time (1 Kgs 11). 20. Cf. Hoffmann 1980; Hobbs 1985: 185-86, 296-97, 343; McConville 1989. For contrasting interpretations of Hezekiah and Josiah which presuppose pre-exilic editions of the Deuteronomistic History, cf. Provan 1988; Cross 1973; Nelson 1981; McKenzie 1991. 21. Since Hezekiah is succeeded by the faithless Manasseh, who precipitates the

222


reign of Manasseh (2 Kgs 21). It is here, too, as is frequently remarked, that the most striking differences appear between the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles. This fact bears directly on the understanding of judgment reflected in the respective works. Long (1991: 248-50) describes the Deuteronomistic Manasseh as 'a pivotal figure in the history of the monarchs', because he is presented as an antitype to both Hezekiah and Josiah. Manasseh undoes the work of his father and reintroduces the apostasies of the north into Judah (v. 3). These are the practices of Ahab for which the northern kingdom was finally destroyed (1 Kgs 16.32-33; 2 Kgs 17.10,16). The list of offences is terrible: it includes idolatry, desecration of the temple, necromancy and human sacrifice (vv. 3-9). Josiah will rectify each of these sins (cf. 2 Kgs 23.4-8, 10, 12) and his own piety will be commended and rewarded, but he cannot finally avert judgment (2 Kgs 22.18-20; 23.2627). For the Deuteronomist Manasseh precipitates an end that has been long foreshadowed in a history of covenant-breaking (cf. 2 Kgs 21.15). The oracle in 2 Kgs 21.10-15 now states that the sentence on Judah is irrevocable. Alluding to Ahab in v. 13 and the judgment against Samaria in 2 Kgs 17.7-23, it declares that Yahweh's 'inheritance' (rftm), Israel as an entity of people, land and covenantal bond (cf. Deut. 9.26, 29; 1 Kgs 8.53), will be cast off and given into the hands of enemies.22 An altogether different function is served by the Chronicler's presentation of Manasseh's reign (2 Chron. 33.1-20). It is important first to note that the writer not only shares the negative evaluation of Manasseh reflected in his Vorlage, but in some respects even intensifies it.23 The addition of Kin in v. 6 and the pluralizing of 'Baal', 'Asherah' and 'son' in vv. 3 and 6 give added emphasis to Manasseh's wrongdoing. The Chronicler has also included the phrase 'in the valley of the son of Hinnom' and omitted the Deuteronomist's comparison with Ahab (2 Kgs 21.3). Together these changes suggest that the Chronicler's Manasseh is modelled more directly on the arch-apostate Davidic king Ahaz, rather than on the northern king Ahab (cf. 2 Chron. 28.2-4). exile (in which He/ekiah has his own share; cf. 2 Kgs 20.16-17), and Josiah's reform is carried out in the shadow of Huldah's oracle (2 Kgs 22.15-20). 22. According to the 'double redaction' theory, this unit and others which blame Manasseh for the exile (2 Kgs 23.26-27; 24.2-3) are secondary expansions ('Dtr 2'); cf. Cross 1973. For differing views on the unity of 2 Kgs 21 see Nelson 1981: 6569; Lowery 1991: 65-69; Long 1991: 246-50. 23. Contra Wellhausen 1885: 207-209; Lowery 1991: 185-86.


223

Since the fall of the northern kingdom is not described expressis verbis in Chronicles, the comparison in the Vorlage would not be appropriate in the later work. This fact may also explain in part the omission of the judgment oracle against Jerusalem and Judah,24 although a more compelling reason for this omission is suggested below. 2 Chron. 33.9-10 make it clear that the people followed Manasseh in doing evil, so that his own exile has typological significance: it adumbrates the people's own experience and may also suggest that, in the Chronicler's view, this king and his generation shared joint responsibility for the fall of judgment. Thus far, the two historical pictures of Manasseh are basically in agreement. However, as we have noted before, the Chronicler's purpose is often more theological and homiletical than simply historical, and the writer's additions (vv. 11-17, 19) indicate how he understood the primary significance of this individual king. These verses recount how Manasseh is personally taken to Babylon at the hands of the Assyrians, where he repents and is restored to his throne. His return is followed by building work and partial reform of the cult. There are a number of historical problems about this additional material,25 but its theological and rhetorical intention is clear. Whereas the Deuteronomist maintained that Manasseh's guilt had precipitated the fall of judgment, the Chronicler presents him instead as the most outstanding paradigm of the efficacy of repentance. This striking difference is explained by the controlling interests and outlooks of the works: the Deuteronomist was providing a historical theodicy for the exile, while the post-exilic Chronicler's aim was to address and encourage a community that had experienced (at least in historical memory) its own Babylonian exile and restoration. It was no doubt conscious of living in the shadow of that event and feeling its many practical strictures. The Chronicler's homiletic response in this instance was to depict Manasseh, the epitome of unfaithfulness who precipitated judgment in the received tradition, as the outstanding sign of Yahweh's mercy and restoration. 24. 2 Kgs 21.11-15; cf. v. 13, 'the measuring line of Samaria and the plumb line of the house of Ahab'. 25. A range of views is represented in the most recent discussion of the historical problems raised by this passage. Williamson (1982: 391-92) is cautious about the historicity of Manasseh's captivity, while Lowery (1991: 185-89) rejects the account as ideologically motivated invention. Schniedewind (1991: 455-61) argues instead that the source citation in 2 Chron. 33.18b reflects original archival information which the Chronicler incorporated and reinterpreted in his message of 'exile and restoration'.

224


Once more, the possibility of repentance signified by the temple is the key to the writer's purpose. The language of the additions in 2 Chron. 33.12-13,19 (u»'i, ^srn, ran; cf. inyen and ibimi) is clearly intended to call to mind the promises of 2 Chron. 7.12b-16a. In this case, the most instructive point lies in Manasseh's response to his circumstances. Having established a comparison with Ahaz in vv. 3 and 6, the Chronicler now contrasts these two: 'in the time of his distress this king Ahaz increased his unfaithfulness against Yahweh' (mrra îJJa1?, 2 Chron. 28.22), but 'in his distress [Manasseh] entreated Yahweh his God and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers' (2 Chron. 33.12). The Chronicler teaches, therefore, through the example of Manasseh that God is disposed to hear his people and restore their lost blessings, if they will emulate his penitent response and make obedient use of the cult (cf. 2 Chron. 33.15-16). Although this point has been foreshadowed earlier in the narrative,26 it must be underlined that Manasseh is the supreme example of restoration in Chronicles. This perception of Manasseh is not, of course, in opposition to the historical understanding of his role in Kings, but rather reflects the Chronicler's emphatic belief in restoration out of judgment, more so than the alternatives of being preserved from harm or the sad reality of punishment for rebellion. For the Chronicler, Manasseh is the darkest foil against which the merciful, restorative will of God appears all the brighter. This distinction is brought out additionally by the differing perspectives on the destruction and exile. For the Deuteronomist the catastrophe of 587 is evidently the climax of the work. The events and dates of the final collapse of Judah and Jerusalem are recounted with unusual precision (cf. 2 Kgs 25.1, 3, 8), while the concluding note of Jehoiachin's rehabilitation (vv. 27-30) probably takes us down to the writer's own situation and time (Long 1991: 288). The Deuteronomist is thus keenly aware of living in the aftermath of the loss of statehood, with the attendant exile and dispersion of his people. The Chronicler, on the other hand, has a wholly different historical 26. The same pattern of (partial) restoration to the penitent has been depicted already in the case of Rehoboam and Judah following Shishak's invasion (2 Chron. 12.6-8, 12), and in Hezekiah's appeal to the north after the Assyrian destruction (2 Chron. 30.6-9). Both passages use the term ntD'^s 'escapee', which took on a more specialized meaning in the post-exilic period for the returnees for Babylon (Ezra 9.8, 13-15; Neh. 1.2; cf. Williamson 1985: 135).


225

(and geographical) perspective. Writing in Jerusalem, where the restoration is a partial reality, he looks on the exile as an episode from the past whose end was effected by the prophetic word that controls history (2 Chron. 36.21). Moreover, the citation of Lev. 26.43 in 2 Chron. 36.21 shows that the Chronicler considered the exile as an essentially positive period when the land 'enjoyed (nrtn) its sabbaths'. Ackroyd (1991: 242) takes this to mean 'a period of enforced fallowness, comparable with the sabbath years of the law (cf. Lev. 25)', which makes the land once more acceptable to God: 'The exile is not viewed by him [the Chronicler] simply in terms of punishment—though this is evident enough in the context—but also in terms of the recuperation needed for the new life of the post-exilic period'.27 It should be noted, too, that Cyrus's decree (vv. 22-23) is also the fulfilment of prophecy. This edict reverses two of the effects of the disaster, the destruction of the temple and the exile of the people. For the Chronicler, then, the consequences of past wrongdoing are fully requited, and his community now enjoys a new dispensation of opportunity. 3. Hope in the Deuteronomistic History and Chronicles The nature of the 'Deuteronomistic hope' has provoked a long and continuing debate, which has itself become more complex as different redactional theories have been proposed.28 Again, however, our concern must be with the final form of the text as the Chronicler would have known and interpreted it. Two sharply divergent positions are represented in research. The first minimizes the elements of hope in the work, while the second lays great stress on the promise to David of an eternal dynasty (2 Sam. 7.11-16). The earliest—and most pessimistic—interpretation of this question 27. Cf. similarly Japhet 1993: 1075-76. 28. From a redactional perspective, the main issue concerns the promissory covenant with David. As I discuss below, von Rad identified in the Deuteronomistic History a theme of grace centring on Nathan's oracle (2 Sam. 7.11-16). Cross (1973: 285-87) argued that this theme of an indefectible promise (cf. 1 Kgs 11.1213, 32, 34, 36; 2 Kgs 8.19; 19.34; 20.6) belonged to the Josianic Dtr. 1 and had no place in the thinking of the exilic Dtr. 2. Support for this view is found in those passages which make perdurance of the promise conditional on obedience (1 Kgs 2.2-4; 6.11-13; 8.25; 9.1-9); cf. Levenson 1981: 145-46. By contrast, McConville (1989; 1992) criticizes redactional approaches for being overly schematic and failing to understand literary features of the work.

226


was stated by Noth. In his view the Deuteronomist had demonstrated that the judgment on Israel was definitive and final. The work did not express any hope for an exiled and scattered people; instead, it treated their destruction as an accomplished fact. The report of Jehoiachin's rehabilitation (2 Kgs 25.27-30) was simply the last information available to the historian and was not intended to herald a new age (1967: 108). Not surprisingly, few have followed Noth in his precise understanding of the work's purpose or future outlook.29 Von Rad (1948; ET 1953) countered Noth's interpretation by arguing that the real concern of the Deuteronomistic History was with the operation of Yah wen's word in history. The schema of prophecy and fulfilment in the work showed that this had a double capacity, judging and destroying as well as saving and forgiving. Thus, alongside the Deuteronomic curses and the prophetic threats stood 'a note of grace' in the promise to David (1953: 89): 'It is the Nathan promise which runs through the history like a Kate^cov and wards off the long merited judgment from the kingdom "for the sake of David".' Von Rad found in those passages throughout 1 and 2 Kings alluding to the Davidic promise30 a series of 'Messianic conceptions' which, in his view, provided the basis of hope on the part of the Deuteronomist for the restoration of the Davidic monarchy. In this light, the reference to Jehoiachin's release was seen to have special theological significance. While the judgment component of Yahweh's word dominated, at least for the time being in the reality of the exile, and the Deuteronomist could not minimize the severity of God's punishment, neither could he concede that Yahweh's promise to David had failed. The Deuteronomist resolved this dilemma by recounting Jehoiachin's release from prison. In this way he indicated that the Davidic line had continued despite judgment and that it provided an opportunity for Yahweh to begin anew with his people. Again, few have been fully persuaded by this argument. It has been rightly objected that no mention is made at the end of 2 Kings of the Nathan oracle, nor indeed of Yahweh's hand in this episode, as we might expect if the Deuteronomist was signalling the resumption of 29. But cf. Schmidt 1983: 112, and Wiirthwein 1984: 481-84, who have reaffirmed Noth's interpretation. Van Seters sees the Deuteronomist's purpose as historiographic: he wrote 'as the first known historian in Western civilization' (1983: 362) to render an account of his nation's past for posterity. 30. Cf. 1 Kgs 8.20, 25; 9.5; 11.12-13, 32, 36; 15.4; 2 Kgs 8.19; 19.34; 20.6.


227

saving history. The most this passage allows, together with the Gedaliah incident (cf. 2 Kgs 25.24), is the possibility of good treatment of the Judean survivors at the hands of the Babylonians.31 To this extent, the work does end on a positive note, but it is muted and falls far short of fuelling expectations of restoration.32 The Deuteronomist demonstrated both the failure of the dynasty (the defection from the Davidic ideal is evident from the time of Solomon, 1 Kings 11) and the persistent sinfulness of the people that resulted in their dispossession. Nevertheless, the Deuteronomist affirms that even in exile Israel is still Yahweh's people, and as such, has the possibility of a new existence. Wolff (1961) has argued that the purpose of the work is to be found in its repeated pattern of apostasy, punishment, repentance (Vaio) and deliverance, which is reflected particularly in Judges and the people's request for a king (1 Sam. 12; cf. vv. 19-22). According to Wolff, the Deuteronomist's intention was to show the exiles that they were in the second stage of that cycle and therefore needed to cry out to Yahweh in repentance. For Wolff, then, the Deuteronomist's purpose was not wholly negative as it was for Noth, nor did it offer a Davidic hope, as von Rad claimed. Rather, the writer raised only the possibility of hope by demonstrating the pattern of Yahweh's previous dealings with his people; the essential task of the exiles was to respond to the invitation to repent. This interpretation seems basically correct. The most significant use of the motif of repentance (Vaic), as Wolff recognized, is found in Solomon's temple dedication prayer (1 Kgs 8.23-53). The composition of this chapter is disputed, but it is generally agreed that the concluding verses (vv. 46-53) at least are of exilic origin.33 These verses specifically 31. Thus Begg 1986: 54. 32. Levenson (1984) has sought to give modified support to von Rad's interpretation of the last verses of Kings. He argues that 2 Kgs 25.28 (rroiB ins ~ISTI) connotes a treaty with Evil-Merodach, a form of 'conditional messianism in the diaspora' in which the original covenant with David is brought 'into line with the new historical reality'. Begg (1986) questions the likelihood of this interpretation, pointing out that nothing is said about Jehoiachin's sons. Deut. 4.29-31 speaks of exilic repentance and 30.1-10 of a return to the land. Wolff (1961: 182) considered these passages secondary; cf. Noth 1967: 109 n. 3; Cross 1973: 278 n. 3; Nelson 1981: 94. An alternative approach is suggested by McConville (1992). He argues from a linguistic comparison of Deut. 29.17-27 and 1 Kgs 8.46-53 that the writer of Kings is consciously distancing himself from Deuteronomy and its hope of return. 33. Cf. Levenson 1981: 152-59.

228


address the question of what Israel should do in the event of exile for disobedience. The Deuteronomist's answer is precise: the people must acknowledge the justice of Yahweh's act, repent34 and beseech Yahweh for forgiveness. In the conclusion to the prayer (vv. 50b-52) the fullest statement of the writer's hope may be found: Grant them compassion in the sight of their captors, so that they may have compassion on them. For they are your people and your inheritance, whom you brought out of Egypt, from the midst of the iron furnace. Let your eyes be open to the supplication of your servant and to the supplication of your people Israel, hearing them whenever they call to you. For you separated them from all the peoples of the earth to be your inheritance, as you declared through Moses your servant, when you brought our fathers out of Egypt, Lord Yahweh.

Two aspects of this prayer call for comment. First, it is significant that its final specific petition is a plea for merciful treatment at the hands of Israel's captors.35 Nothing is said at this point either about the dynastic promise or a return to the land; instead, the focus is on the survival of Israel as a community in exile (McConville 1992: 76). Secondly, th prayer is grounded on Yahweh's election of Israel in the exodus and Sinaitic covenant. Judgment has resulted in the loss of those centres which gave cohesion and identity to Israel: the land, city, temple and functioning kingship; and yet the people remain Yahweh's special possession (n^m). Exile has apparently returned Israel to the premonarchic status ante quo, in which the ancient deliverance and election take on a new salvific significance. For the Deuteronomist Yahweh's presence is not restricted to the land or temple, so the possibility of renewed blessing, dependent on repentance, is left open. The Chronicler's use and modification of this material is striking, particularly in the new ending he assigns to the prayer. First, the Deuteronomist's petition for mercy for the exiles (1 Kgs 8.50) is omitted, presumably because it would not be so relevant to a community that had been restored to the land. That petition is, however, echoed by the Chrdnicler's Hezekiah in 2 Chron. 30.9: 'If you return to Yahweh, your brothers and your sons will find mercy from their captors and

34. Note the repeated word-play on captivity and repentance in vv. 46-48: cash, 35. This, incidentally, accords with Begg's view (1986), noted above, of what the Deuteronomist intends through Gedaliah's words and Jehoiachin's release.


229

return to their land'. This verse witnesses to a concern with the continuing diaspora in the Chronicler's day, that it too would be restored to the land. Secondly, the petition that Yahweh would hear his people 'whenever they call to you' is reformulated and connected explicitly with the temple as 'the prayer of this place' (2 Chron. 6.40; 7.15). The temple, being restored after the destruction and exile, is now presented as an impetus to expectant prayer. Thirdly, and most significantly, the Chronicler has replaced the reference to the exodus with an appeal on the basis of the Davidic covenant: 'Remember your steadfast love for David (TIT non) your servant' (2 Chron. 6.42).36 These changes signify more than a mere updating of earlier material in the light of the Return: they reflect a development (and to some extent, transformation) of these traditions and theological motifs in terms of the Chronicler's beliefs, as the following section argues. 4. Chronicles as Resumption and Development We are now in a position to consider the message of Chronicles in relation to its immediate literary-theological predecessors. So far the work has been examined in comparison only with the Deuteronomistic History, but there is in my view an additional, intermediate stage which Chronicles presupposes and implicitly comments upon, the programme of community restoration reflected in Ezra-Nehemiah. While the themes of judgment and hope are perhaps less pronounced here for the purpose of comparison,37 it does appear that Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah have a special literary relationship with each other. This should not be characterized as 'continuation' (according to the older critical view of unitary composition), especially if the view is correct which sees them as separate works by different authors, with Chronicles post-dating EzraNehemiah. But neither are the two works wholly disjunct, with their similarities to be explained by the mere fact that both are (most probably) the products of temple circles with overlapping interests and 36. Cf. Chapter 7 on the meaning of Tin 'ion and its possible messianic or 'royalist' significance for the Chronicler. 37. But note the use of exodus typology for the return in Ezra 1.5-8, 11 (Williamson 1985: 15-19) and the 'Deuteronomistic' understanding of judgment in Ezra9;Neh. 1,9.

230


outlooks. Although the narrative of Chronicles precedes that of EzraNehemiah, it is written from the perspective of the Return, in part as this is described in Ezra-Nehemiah, and it appears, to some extent, to draw upon the language and themes of that work. In terms of its message, Chronicles offers a resumption and development of the thought not only of the Deuteronomistic History but also of Ezra-Nehemiah.38 Taking the works, then, in the order Deuteronomistic History-Ezra-NehemiahChronicles, it may be suggested that the Chronicler understood his own composition as setting forth the third stage, as it were, in the restoration of Israel from the catastrophe of judgment and exile. To begin with, the Chronicler develops two themes in particular from the Deuteronomistic History, repentance and the Davidic covenant, and gives them a more comprehensive and central place in his own presentation. It will be recalled that the exilic Deuteronomist writes for a chastened people to counsel repentance for their age-long violation of the covenant. As a theodicy for Yahweh's judgment and a summons to cry out to him in penitence, the Deuteronomistic History makes coherent, rhetorical sense, but as that situation passed, the work would have lost its immediate relevance for the community.39 The Chronicler may assume that this exilic repentance (the first stage in restoration in his work [cf. 2 Chron. 7.14], as indeed it is for the Deuteronomist) has in fact taken place, for Yahweh has forgiven his people and facilitated their return. This fact goes beyond the clearest expectation of the Deuteronomist.40 Over against the Deuteronomistic History, Chronicles must appear a much more hopeful and positive work, as well as more specific in the character of its hope.41 Next, the theme of the Davidic covenant is developed considerably from the earlier history, and is in fact made the basis whereby such restoration is possible. The promises to David in 2 Sam. 7.11-16 are taken up first in 1 Chron. 17.10-14, and are echoed next in several 38. Indeed this very relationship is suggested by the literary Wiederaufhahme of Ezra 1.1-3 in 2 Chron. 36.22-23. See Chapter 1 for arguments that the ending is an original part of the Chronicler's work, though derived from Ezra, and Chapter 8 for a discussion of its paraenetic significance in the Chronicler's use. 39. Cf. Patrick and Scult 1990: 77-78. 40. Cf. 1 Kgs 8.50 and its re-use in 2 Chron. 30.9. 41. Similarly, we have seen repeatedly how its doctrine of retribution is really to do with the possibility of repentance and restoration, a point dramatically underlined through its portrayal of Manasseh that diverges radically in its significance from the Deuteronomist.


231

Chronistic passages: David's speeches in 1 Chron. 22.7-19, 28.2-10 and 29.1-5, and his prayer in 1 Chron. 29.10-19. These passages draw a close connection between the dynastic promise and the building of the temple, and indicate that in that activity the promises find their initial fulfilment. The conclusion to Solomon's temple prayer (2 Chron. 6.42) is in the same vein and looks to a continuing fulfilment thereafter on the same basis (cf. 2 Chron. 6.10). Those in the Chronicler's time who made use of the temple as Solomon's prayer envisaged would be reminded of the Davidic covenant which that building, in its complete functioning, signified.42 This promise, which in the Deuteronomistic History was presented so brightly in 2 Samuel 7 as a charter of hope for Israel (cf. vv. 18-29), but which became problematic from Solomon's reign onward and is effectively absent from the Deuteronomist's hope,43 is once more reasserted at the very heart of the Chronicler's presentation and programme.44 The second stage of the restoration is the return of the exiles and the 42. Selman (1994b: 551) makes the persuasive suggestion that the expression 'to build him a house' in the conclusion of the work in 2 Chron. 36.23 (= Ezra 1.2) is not simply fortuitous but 'a deliberate echo of the central promise of the Davidic covenant' (cf. 1 Chron. 17.11-12 [contrast 2 Sam. 7.11, 'Yahweh will make you a house']; 22.10; 28.6; 2 Chron. 6.9-10). David Gunn, in a discussion that is orientated to the poetics and the intertextual relationships of these works, remarks (1989: 147): The end of Kings is a gaping hole which, when we peer into it, loops us back to Deuteronomy, to where we stand "today" before Moses, "outside" pondering the invitation to enter and participate in a new gift. The ending of Chronicles bridges that gulf surely, converts desolation into a sabbath (2 Chron. 36.21), and marches us resolutely toward an unambiguous goal—to build YHWH a house. Cyrus' decree (36.23) strikingly resumes David's charge to Solomon (1 Chron. 22.6, 18-19).' 43. Thus Wolff, rightly, against von Rad; cf. Veijola. It must be stressed, however, that as a promissory covenant, the Davidic covenant is eternal (cf. 2 Sam. 7.13b; 23.5). It is not presented in the Deuteronomistic History as having been abrogated, as proponents of multiple redactions have asserted, and a fortiori this is certainly not the case with the Chronicler (contra Japhet 1989: 460-67). Cf. McCarthy 1972: 45-52. The conditions of obedience reflected in passages such as 1 Kgs 2.4, 8.25 and 9.4-5 have to do with the benefits of individuals within the line, rather than the validity of the promise as such. There can be no doubt that the events of 587 dealt a severe blow to this faith (cf. Ps. 89.20-46 [E 19-45]), but it was the genius of the Chronicler to pick up again this central theme and affirm its eternal validity for his community. 44. The central place of the Davidic covenant in the Chronicler's thought is affirmed most recently by Riley (1993:168-85) although he denies that this ideology has any dynastic overtones or a personal focus.

232


re-establishment of the community's cultic life. As this period is presented in Ezra-Nehemiah, it has its positive features but it is still ambiguous and far from ideal: sin persists in the community (Ezra 10; Neh. 13), and Judah's subject status is perceived as continuing punishment (Ezra 9.6-15; Neh. 1.5-11; 9.32-37). The temple is now functioning again, but it is not associated in this work with the ideology of the Davidic covenant. The Chronicler's work should be understood as presupposing and building upon the account in Ezra-Nehemiah.45 This concerns the structure of the work as well as its thought. First, Selman (1994a: 38) notes that two of the three main sections of Chronicles (1 Chron. 1-9; 2 Chron. 10-36) conclude with citations from Ezra-Nehemiah, both of which have to do with the temple and the Return to the land (1 Chron. 9.2-17 = Neh. 11.3-19; 2 Chron. 36.22-23 = Ezra 1.1-2). The first-mentioned passage goes on to depict (in 1 Chron. 9.10-34) the temple cult being faithfully performed through the Levitical offices. This was the ideal round of activities to which the Return in 2 Chron. 36.22-23 was directed, and the description indicates the successful fulfilment in the post-exilic period of God's purposes for the temple. Secondly, over against Ezra-Nehemiah, a more positive tone marks the Chronicler's work. The writer affirms that the time of Israel's punishment is past (2 Chron. 36.21; contrast Ezra 9.7-8; Neh. 9.36-37) and encourages his community to hope in a yet greater fulfilment of the ancient promises which the temple mediates. Finally, as Japhet (1989) and Williamson (1977a) have demonstrated, the Chronicler has an altogether more comprehensive definition of 'Israel' than the exclusive understanding of the community reflected in Ezra-Nehemiah. The appeal of Chronicles is to embrace within the Restoration community all who have a rightful claim to belong to 'Israel', and the popular temple cult especially is the focus of such a gathering.

45. At the linguistic level we may note the use of?JJB in Ezra 9.2,4; 10.2, 6, 10; Neh. 13.27, although in these passages it narrowly denotes intermarriage with foreigners, which is not an issue in Chronicles (contrast Neh. 1.8). Cf. Chapter 3 above on the tradition-historical background to the Chronicler's use ofpro.


233

5. Conclusion The Chronicler sets forth in his work a conscious reinterpretation and development of the earlier scriptural traditions of Israel, according to his own distinctive perspectives and his reflection on the meaning of the Return as the resumption of Yahweh's saving history with his people. Themes in Samuel-Kings are recast to emphasize Yahweh's mercy and restorative purposes, rather than the reality of judgment. By the same token, although Ezra-Nehemiah showed that the initial Return appeared to have failed to obtain its bright objectives of a renewed and faithful community (this seems the likeliest way of reading the rather dismaying conclusion in Nehemiah 13, in which the sin of intermarriage persists4*), the Chronicler nevertheless affirms that earlier work of restoration as a decisive and positive stage in 'building Yahweh's house', and he puts it in the context of God's irrefrangible promise to David.

46. Cf. Williamson 1985: 402; McConville 1986b: 211-13.

Chapter 10 CONCLUSIONS

The renewed attention that Chronicles has enjoyed in recent years has led to a reappraisal of much of the consensus about the work that prevailed in earlier generations of research. Older assumptions about the extent, Tendenzen and historical setting of Chronicles have been effectively challenged from several quarters. While it would be too early to speak of a new consensus, it is evident that the work is being considered, at least in Anglo-American circles, in a very different light from the relative neglect (not to mention disdain) which it has faced for most of the modern period.1 This study stands consciously in that line of reconstruction and reinterpretation. By undertaking a detailed investigation of two of the principal theological concerns of the work, it has sought to penetrate more closely to the nature of the Chronicler's outlook and purpose. A number of steps and approaches have been involved in this process. First, by distinguishing Chronicles from Ezra-Nehemiah and placing it chronologically after that work, we are able to consider Chronicles separately, on its own terms, as well as in comparison with Ezra-Nehemiah. Such an approach, I believe, best expresses the real continuities which commentators have long observed between these works, as well as their striking discontinuities.2 1. See Striibind (1991: 1-4 and especially n. 17) on the continuing reception (or rejection) of Chronicles in German-language circles, much of which can still be attributed to Wellhausen's (1878) exposition of its Grundgedanken. The survey above (Chapter 2) of the history of interpretation of retribution in Chronicles has confirmed the decisive influence of Wellhausen's views even up to Japhet. Further, the 'anti-' or 'realized' eschatological interpretation of recent years must now appear a wrong turning, the more closely the structure of the Chronicler's thought is examined. 2. For different configurations of these works, see most recently Clines 1990: 85-105 and Ackroyd 1991: 344-59.

10. Conclusions

235

Secondly, some of the older critical assumptions relating more generally to the history and ideology of the exilic/post-exilic period have been questioned or rejected, at least in their classical form. A number of these views provided the ideological frame within which Chronicles has often been interpreted, and as they are modified or rejected, the Chronicler's message needs to be considered afresh.3 Thirdly, this study has emphasized the literary achievement of the Chronicler and the carefully wrought form of his work as a fundamental element in interpretation. Of particular importance here are the writer's special recurrent theological vocabulary, and the narrative structure of the book, which makes implicit as well as explicit comment on the nature of Yahweh's involvement with his people. Fourthly, in attempting to reconstruct something of the life and thought of this period, we have made some use of analogous sociological models for interpreting the function of the genealogies. Here a caveat is in order: while the use of such models is certain to grow in importance, nevertheless it raises critical questions of methodology and fact, about which there must always be a large degree of provisionality.4 As Wilson reminds us (1984: 82), 'Explorations of the social dimensions of the Old Testament world are most useful when employed in conjunction with more traditional interpretative tools'. It must be recalled, of course, that the texts themselves are the most 3. Such as the notion of 'corporate personality' and developing concepts of individual responsibility, or Chronicles being fundamentally about theodicy (von Rad, North), or reflecting the (supposedly) 'anti-eschatological' viewpoint of the Priestly Writing (Ploger), Differences in outlook between English-language and German scholarship are also reflected in the ascription by Rudolph and Ploger (following Noth) to Chronicles of an anti-Samaritan Tendenz; cf. Becker 1988; Oeming 1990; contrast Coggins 1975: 68-72 and Williamson 1977; 1982 on 2 Chron. 13, who finds nothing in Chronicles relating to the Samaritan controversy. 4. Hanson (1975; 1986) is explicitly indebted to sociological models that derive from Troeltsch, Weber and Mannheim in reconstructing what he believes were the different 'parties' and groups of the post-exilic period and their supposed ideologies, but we have found little textual evidence for his proposals, and a good deal in Chronicles that contradicts it. The contrast which Ploger drew between 'theocracy' and 'eschatology' is equally questionable. For examples of sociologically based approaches to the post-exilic period, see most recently the essays in Davies 1991, although these discussions do not engage much with Chronicles. Richard Horsley's 'Response' in this collection (pp. 163-74) makes some salutary remarks on the practical limitations to applying modern sociological models to ancient Near Eastern imperial society.

236


important witnesses for a historical period about which there are still (and will most probably remain) large gaps in knowledge. In using largely 'traditional interpretative tools' and applying them to the writer's retributive and eschatological thought, we are led to a number of conclusions about Chronicles and its period that differ in significant respects from some prevalent and long-standing opinions. The following points summarize the ways in which I believe this study has contributed to a more accurate interpretation of the work. First, it is clear that in both its retributive and eschatological doctrine the Chronicler's thought is fundamentally positive and forward-looking. 1. The Chronicler's theology of retribution, so far from being a sclerotic dogmatism about cause and effect or a species of 'divine pragmatism', as it has been generally depicted, is in fact a reflex of the writer's convictions about divine grace, an emphasis concerned above all to highlight Yahweh's mercy and restorative activity toward his people. Similarly, the writer's eschatological outlook, though difficult to characterize clearly in the full extent of its expectation, does not express satisfaction with the status quo as the fulfilment of the Restoration community's expectations, as some more recent writers have urged, but in every respect reflects a hopeful 'openness' to the future. These points have been established in this study through a consideration of a wider body of evidence than earlier studies have afforded, including the 'tendency' or direction of the themes and motifs of the work, and its narrative structure. The Chronicler's thought is not an idiosyncratic, ideological cul de sac but belongs rather within the mainstream of Old Testament theology in its emphasis on restoration and fulfilment, and in looking hopefully to God to accomplish a new work of salvation for the sake of his covenant people.5 Indeed, the author seems to have 5. Rather than being, for example, 'at the edge of the canon' in its supposed anti-eschatological outlook (Rudolph 1955: xxiii), or diverging radically from the wider biblical tradition in depicting Israel's history as the 'absolutization of divine justice' in its retributive thought, as Japhet (1989: 153-54) claims. The extremism of this latter opinion is clear. On the Davidic covenant in Chronicles (quite neglected by Japhet), already von Rad (1930:136) affirmed: 'Chronicles is a single great appeal to Yahweh's promise' ('Die Chronik ist ein einziger grofier Rekurs auf Jahwes Verheiftung',emphasis original); while Quids (1979: 643-44) states concisely: '[The Chronicler's] purpose in writing seems entirely straightforward. The author was attempting to interpret to the restored community in Jerusalem the history of Israel as an eternal covenant between God and David which demanded an obedient response to the divine law. On the basis of past history he sought repeatedly to draw the lesson

10. Conclusions

237

understood his own work as an authoritative summation and (to some extent) a development of the earlier scriptural traditions of his people, in which he testifies to the resumption in his own time of the flow of salvation history, of Yahweh's renewed saving activity among his chastened and forgiven people. 2. We may now appreciate more clearly the integral relationship between retribution and eschatology in the Chronicler's work. They are related first as dimensions of the Davidic covenant, which for the Chronicler is eternally valid and continues to mediate Yahweh's promises for the Davidic line, the people and the land, and defines the meaning of the temple as a symbol of the covenant and the place of restoration.6 However, a closer relationship between these doctrines arises from the fact that retribution in Chronicles has itself a forwardlooking or eschatological character, as the doctrine is described above, it is basically a call to repentance and hope in Yahweh's restoration. This is in marked contrast to the usual 'pragmatic' understanding of the doctrine, which is non-eschatological and orientated to the present (cf. 'immediate retribution'). The older view notwithstanding, the real func tion of the Chronicler's retributive doctrine is to hold up before the community the possibilities of its future existence; in an important sense, the community's future is actually dependent on its response to the offer of restoration and the summons to repentance, faith and reform which this doctrine embraces (hence the pervasive paraenetic tone of the work). Thus, the Chronicler's theology, as it is expressed through his doctrine of retribution and his eschatology, possesses an underlying coherence and unity. This fact is derived ultimately from the writer's perception of Yahweh's character: the God of Israel is presented as a forward-looking and merciful God committed to the restoration of his people, and the Chronicler's interpretation of the Davidic covenant duly reflects this understanding.7 that Israel prospered when obedient, but courted God's wrath and the destruction of the nation through disobedience. In spite of continual warnings from the prophets, Israel abandoned God's law and suffered the consequences (2 Chron. 36.15-16). However, after the judgment, God once again restored his people who continue to stand under the same divine imperatives.' This approach is developed independently and most extensively by Selman (1994a: 45-65). 6. Cf. 1 Chron. 17.4-14; 2 Chron. 7.12-22. 7. Cf. 1 Chron. 17.9-10, 20-21; 2 Chron. 36.22-23.

238


A further conclusion of this study concerns the writer's historical method. As far as we can judge from the special Chronistic material relating to reward and punishment in 2 Chronicles 10-36, it appears that the Chronicler set about his task of re-presenting the past to his community in a historically responsible way and was not cavalier in the invention of the facts to suit his case. While the question of the Chronicler's extrabiblical sources may never be satisfactorily resolved, it appears that the author made extensive use of such materials and worked within their constraints. Neither the older representations of Chronicles as a tendentious falsification of the past (de Wette) nor the recent, more positive suggestions that it is edifying fiction (Welten), an extended piece of typology (Mosis), or 'aggadic exegesis' (Fishbane), do proper justice to the character of the work. Of course, the writer's purpose in his Sondergut is evident enough: it is to demonstrate from Judah's history the consequences of obedience and disobedience and to elicit the appropriate response of repentance and faith. No doubt the degree of evident moralizing in the Chronicler's work has raised suspicions about the traditions he purports to draw on. However, it is salutary to recall that every narrative history (as opposed to annalistic 'chronicle') is to some extent an aesthetic and moral construct. The philosopher of history Hayden White has well remarked that that no story can be told without asserting connections between events, and it is these which lend moral direction to the story as a whole. While this is true for fact or fiction, history exerts a much greater persuasive force upon its readers, as White recognizes (1981: 20): 'We can comprehend the appeal of historical (narrative) discourse by recognizing the extent to which it makes the real desirable, makes the real into an object of desire, and does so by its imposition, upon events that are represented as real, of the formal coherency that stories possess.' In the Chronicler's hands the narrative possesses its persuasive force precisely because it is based in the history of the people to whom it is addressed. The point is well expressed by Patrick and Scult, who observe in their study of the rhetoric of the biblical histories (1990: 48) that 'a narrative which makes a claim to historicity takes a much more aggressive and direct stand in relationship to the audience. The events portrayed in a historical narrative happened in the real world and so have a forward movement that carries directly into the world of the reader'. It is clear from passages such as 1 Chron. 9.2-3 and 28.8 that the Chronicler understands his community as living in unbroken

10. Conclusions

239

continuity with pre-exilic Israel and inheriting its promises and obligations. These concerns notwithstanding, there is substantial evidence that the Chronicler depended upon extrabiblical sources for his retributive motifs in 2 Chron. 10-36, a fact which should caution us from accepting the sharp distinction often drawn between theology and history in the Chronicler's work. Moving more tentatively from the text to its situation, we may consider now what light the Chronicler's treatment of retribution and eschatology cast on the Sitz im Leben of the work. Two interests in particular are suggested by the rhetorical character of the book. First, Chronicles appears as a genuinely populist work: it repeatedly depicts the consultation, encouragement, and collective activity of the leadership and people of Israel and Judah around one constant focus, the foundation, support and reform of the Jerusalem cult. The work tirelessly reiterates the point that support of the cult leads to the community's benefit, but neglect and apostasy lead to its detriment. It may be fairly inferred from so prominent a Chronistic theme that the writer was concerned to foster popular support for the cult of his own day. Such evidence as we have from the middle Persian period (Mai. 3.8-10; Neh. 12.44-47; 13.10-13) certainly suggests that at different times tithe support for the Levites was by no means assured or forthcoming, and against this the Chronicler no doubt set the ideal portrayed in passages such as 2 Chron. 31.4-19 as a positive counterpoise. In connecting such support for the temple and clergy with the prosperity of the community, the Chronicler reflects a typical theme of post-exilic temple circles.8 However, the writer has wider concerns in his religious programme than the immediate question of material support for the cult and its officers. The Chronicler's broad appeal to the community at large, his markedly positive depiction of the people, and the frequent descriptions of their festive joy all indicate that the writer is interested in the revival and transformation of his community through its participation in temple worship and prayer; for it is precisely there that Israel may recognize its identity and hope as being established in the ancient covenant promises to which the temple testifies. Related to this emphasis is the Chronicler's concern for unity, which others have rightly found reflected for example in his 'pan-Israelitism'. Recently Talmon has sketched the internal diversification of Judaism in the early Hellenistic period, which he believes must be understood 8.

Cf. Mason 1990: 182-83, 253.

240


against the backdrop of the Babylonian Exile and the Return (1991: 1643, esp. 20-30). Talmon cogently argues that the loss of those political and religious 'centres' which accorded homogeneity and uniformity to the pre-exilic kingdom of Judah (in particular monarchy, statehood and temple) was a factor in the rise of considerable heterogeneity and diversity within post-exilic Judaism. While this question cannot be examined here, we may well see a reflex of that development in the way in which the Chronicler presents the Davidic-Solomonic dynasty and temple as the foci of unity for 'all Israel', against the likely centrifugal social and religious tendencies of his day.9 We cannot say with any certainty how the message of Chronicles was immediately appropriated or what impact it exercised in its day. Light on this question would certainly aid the correct interpretation of the work, but the relative paucity of information about the middle and later Persian period does not permit us to assign too precise a date or Sitz im Leben to the book. Nevertheless, while the early Wirkungsgeschichte of this work is unknown, it is certainly true as a general principle that the received scriptures of a community exercise a continuing influence in their history and thought, and it is surely not without significance that Chronicles came to mark the conclusion, in its canonical form, of the Hebrew Bible.10 Japhet (1989: 507) unhesitatingly sees Chronicles as a bridge to 'post-biblical thought', especially in its retributive doctrine, which she characterizes as the germ of the rabbinical understanding of divine justice and strict recompense (pp. 184-85), and its futurist outlook, which she claims is 'non-eschatological', neither setting any store by the Davidic covenant (pp. 453-67) nor expecting any divine intervention that would significantly alter the essentially stable circumstances of that community's life. However, as I have argued at length above, these interpretations are ill-founded, as is Japhet's more general attempt to read Chronicles as a progenitor of a kind of later rationalistic Judaism. I certainly endorse Japhet's strictures against the ways in which the 'Davidism' of Chronicles has been understood by many Christian inter-

9. Cf. Braun 1976; Williamson 1991; cf. also Williamson 1977a: 132-40 on the related question of the definition of 'Israel' in the post-exilic period. 10. That this arrangement was well established by the first century CE is evidently reflected in Mt. 23.35; Lk. 11.51; cf. 2 Chron. 24.20-21. See Johnstone's articles (esp. 1983) for some suggestive reflections on the place of Chronicles in the canonical arrangement of the Hebrew Bible.

10. Conclusions

241

preters,11 but would suggest (however tentatively) that there are broader—and deeper—lines of continuity connecting the Chronicler's concern with the Davidic covenant (and its implicit messianism) with the subsequent historical period. This suggestion derives from the central theological insistence of Chronicles, that the covenant constituted Israel as the earthly manifestation of the kingdom of God, in a reality manifested by the temple, appointed for atonement and prayer, and the Davidic line, the personal expression of God's rule. Thus, as the Hebrew Bible in its canonical form concludes by reaffirming the perdurance of this promise (2 Chron. 36.23), it issues an invitation to respond 0>Jn), and in doing so it opens up trajectories that may take us into the centre of New Testament faith.

11. Riley (1993: 196-98), makes an analogous point independently in his discussion of 2 Chron. 6.42 (= Isa. 55.3b), which he denies has any reference to the Davidic line.

APPENDIX: RETRIBUTIVE MOTIFS IN 2 CHRONICLES 10-36

Reign

Motifs of Blessing and Reward Building Progeny

Rehoboam Abijah Asa

11.5-12

Jehoshaphat

17.12-13

Wealth, Gifts, Fame Tribute

Cult Reform

11.19-21 13.21

Army Military Success

13.3

14.5-6

'Fearof YHWH' upon enemy

13.15-16

14.2^, 8-16

18.1

17.5,11

17.6; 19.4-5

'Rest' for the land

17.2, 20.22-23 17.10; 13-19 20.29

13.23; 14.4-6, 15, 19 17.10; 20.30

Jehoram Ahaziah Joash

24.3

Amaziah

25.5 26.2,6, 9-10 27.3-4

26.15

Hezekiah

32.5

32.23, 27-29

Manasseh Amon Josiah

33.14

Uzziah Jotham Ahaz

Jehoahaz Jehoiakim Jehoiachin Zedekiah

23.21

23.1617 25.11-12

26.8

26.6-7

27.6

27.5

32.23

29.3-4; 30.14; 31.1-2 33.15 34.3-4, 29-30

32.6

33.14

32.21

Assessment

Motifs of Punishment and Restoration Apostasy

Prophetic Word

Military Defeat

12.1

12.5

12.4

Exile

Repentance Restoration

12.6

21.4-5,

17,37 21.12-15

11 22.3-5 24.17-18 (?25.6) 25.14 26.16

24.19-22

33.2-3 33.22-23

18.31 [19.4-5]

24.23-24. (25.10

26.18

positive.

21.17-19

21.20

negative

22.6, 9 24.25

22.9 24.25

negative negative

25.27

25.28

negative

26.19

26.23

?negative

27.9 28.27

positive negative

32.24

32.33

positive

33.24 (735.23-24)

33.20 — 35.24

negative negative positive

_

7

-

negative negative negative

28.5, 17- 28.5, 8

20

33.10

33.11

33.11

34.23-24 (35.22) 36.8 36.9 36.12-13

21.1

18.32

21.8-10, 16-17

25.7-9, 15 25.22-24

28.2-4, 16,22-25 32.25

negative 7 positive

716.12

18.2, 1617; 19.23; 20.14-

Burial Notice

12.16 13.23 16.14

12.7

15.1; 16.7

18.1; 20.35

Sickness or Death as Punishment

36.12-13

32.26

32.26

33.12

33.13

34.29-30

36.17

36.4 36.6 36.10 36.20

-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackroyd, P.R. 1970 Israel under Babylon and Persia (Oxford: Oxford University Press). 1973 / and II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah (Torch Bible Commentaries; London: SCM Press). 1987 Studies in the Religious Tradition of the Old Testament (London: SCM Press). 1991 The Chronicler in his Age (JSOTSup, 101; Sheffield: JSOT Press). Aharoni, Y. 1979 The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (London: SCM Press, 2nd edn [1967]). Albright, W.F. 1924 'Egypt and the Early History of the Negev', JPOS 4: 146-47. Allen, L.C. 1974 The Greek Chronicles: The Relation of the Septuagint of f and II Chronicles to the Massoretic Text. Part 1. The Translator's Craft. Part 2. Textual Criticism (VTSup, 25, 27; Leiden: Brill). 1988 'Kerygmatic Units in 1 and 2 Chronicles', JSOT 41: 21-36. Alonso Schokel, L. 1988 A Manual of Hebrew Poetics (AnBib; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute). Auld, A.G. 1994 Kings without Privilege: David and Moses in the Story of the Bible's Kings (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark). Bahat, D. 1981 'The Wall of Manasseh in Jerusalem', IEJ31: 235-36. Barag, D. 'The Effects of the Tennes Rebellion on Palestine', BASOR 183: 6-12. 1966 Barr.J. 1961 The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press). 1982 'Hebrew

Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles (JSOT Supplement Series)

Eschatology in the Bible and in Jewish and Christian Tradition (Jsot Supplement Series, 243)

Qohelet and His Contradictions (JSOT Supplement Series)

Retribution: The Jiling Chronicles

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (JSOT Supplement Series)

Troubling Jeremiah (Jsot Supplement Series, Vol 260)

Time and Place in Deuteronomy (JSOT Supplement)

Property and Family in Biblical Law (JSOT Supplement Series)

Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition (JSOT Supplement Series)

Jerusalem in Ancient History and Tradition (JSOT Supplement Series)

Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Faces of David (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Chronicler's History (JSOT Supplement Series)

The LORD's Song: The Basis, Function and Significance of Choral Music in Chronicles (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Moses Tradition (JSOT Supplement Series)

Anna Strong Chronicles - 05 Retribution

Chronicles and Exodus: An Analogy and Its Application (JSOT Supplement Series)

No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel (JSOT Supplement Series)

Israel in Egypt: Reading Exodus 1-2 (JSOT Supplement Series)

Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry (JSOT Supplement Series)

King Saul in the Historiography of Judah (JSOT Supplement Series)

Biblical Form Criticism in Its Context (Jsot Supplement Series, 274)

Pivot Patterns in the Former Prophets (JSOT Supplement Series)

Culture, Entertainment, and the Bible (JSOT Supplement Series)

Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period (JSOT Supplement Series)

Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (JSOT Supplement Series)

Reading Hosea in Achaemenid Yehud (JSOT Supplement)

Images of Empire (JSOT Supplement)

The Chronicler in His Age (JSOT supplement)

The Nathan Narratives (JSOT Supplement)

Land Tenure and the Biblical Jubilee (Jsot Supplement Series)

Retribution and Eschatology in Chronicles (JSOT Supplement Series)

Eschatology in the Bible and in Jewish and Christian Tradition (Jsot Supplement Series, 243)

Qohelet and His Contradictions (JSOT Supplement Series)

Retribution: The Jiling Chronicles

Priesthood and Cult in Ancient Israel (JSOT Supplement Series)

Troubling Jeremiah (Jsot Supplement Series, Vol 260)

Time and Place in Deuteronomy (JSOT Supplement)

Property and Family in Biblical Law (JSOT Supplement Series)

Creation in Jewish and Christian Tradition (JSOT Supplement Series)

Jerusalem in Ancient History and Tradition (JSOT Supplement Series)

Law and Ideology in Monarchic Israel (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Faces of David (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Chronicler's History (JSOT Supplement Series)

The LORD's Song: The Basis, Function and Significance of Choral Music in Chronicles (JSOT Supplement Series)

The Moses Tradition (JSOT Supplement Series)

Anna Strong Chronicles - 05 Retribution

Chronicles and Exodus: An Analogy and Its Application (JSOT Supplement Series)

No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel (JSOT Supplement Series)

Israel in Egypt: Reading Exodus 1-2 (JSOT Supplement Series)

Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry (JSOT Supplement Series)

King Saul in the Historiography of Judah (JSOT Supplement Series)

Biblical Form Criticism in Its Context (Jsot Supplement Series, 274)

Pivot Patterns in the Former Prophets (JSOT Supplement Series)

Culture, Entertainment, and the Bible (JSOT Supplement Series)

Jewish Scribes in the Second-Temple Period (JSOT Supplement Series)

Text-Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (JSOT Supplement Series)

Reading Hosea in Achaemenid Yehud (JSOT Supplement)

Images of Empire (JSOT Supplement)

The Chronicler in His Age (JSOT supplement)

The Nathan Narratives (JSOT Supplement)

Land Tenure and the Biblical Jubilee (Jsot Supplement Series)

Recommend Documents